Three Dundee sub-contract workers were unfairly dismissed from their jobs at the GlaxoSmithKline site in Montrose, a tribunal has ruled.
An employment tribunal in Dundee said the evidence of their operations manager, who decided to sack them, was neither credible nor reliable.
James Heggie, David Galloway and Brian Russell were employed by Kitsons Environmental Europe Ltd of Warrington, Cheshire, a specialist asbestos removal and thermal installation company.
The tribunal concluded the three men were unfairly dismissed and their cases will now be continued to a remedy hearing.
Kitsons carried out maintenance work on the site during the week and ad hoc non-maintenance work at weekends, as specified by the main contractor Doosan Babcock.
The three men’s contracts said they were entitled to be paid for full, eight-hour shifts at weekends, irrespective of how many hours they actually worked.
This arrangement was known as ”job and knock,” which the three said allowed them to leave the site when the job they were asked to do was completed.
In February 2011 Ralph Livingston, the operations manager, wrote to Mr Galloway and Mr Heggie to tell them they were potential candidates for redundancy but within a few days they were advised they were not to be selected.
Mr Livingston, who was based at Rosyth, told the tribunal that later in February 2011 he was called to a meeting at the GSK site to be told the security company was concerned about the Kitsons vehicle coming and going a great deal at weekends.
He was asked to find out what was happening and he checked gate reports for a ”snapshot” of the previous weekends.
He then instructed his company’s payroll to check the gate reports against the times claimed in the Kitsons employees’ payslips and these revealed a discrepancy between the hours worked and paid for and the times the men were on site.
Kitsons’ HR department decided an investigation should be carried out and the three men were invited to an investigatory meeting but were not told it related to allegations of misconduct.
They were accused of leaving the site earlier than agreed, receiving monies for hours not worked and were told they could be disciplined and dismissed.
They were sacked and they later appealed but were unsuccessful.
The three did not dispute they had left early on the weekends and they had claimed for more hours than they had actually worked.
However, they said their position was widespread, accepted and known practice when ad hoc work was carried out at weekends.
The tribunal said the whole disciplinary process from investigation to dismissal was rushed through within five days.
”A reasonable employer would not have conducted matters with such haste,” the tribunal stated.
They believed the haste was consistent with Mr Livingston’s involvement throughout, ”and what appeared to be his desire to drive through the proceedings to a conclusion as quickly as possible on the false premise of an admission of guilt, thereby rendering any further investigation unnecessary.”
They said the investigation was conducted with a list of leading questions and Mr Livingston had misrepresented the men’s answers.
The tribunal was also puzzled at Mr Livingston going to Mr Galloway’s home in Dundee to check on his address.
Its ruling commented: ”It smacked of Mr Livingston endeavouring to dredge up evidence prejudicial to Mr Galloway’s continued employment with Kitsons.”