Security Guard awarded €21k

So this fella was sacked because he allowed a site visitor to use the toilet before signing in and being given (what I assume to be) a visitors pass.

The site visitor approached the security booth at the time in a state of distress and pretty much bent over, the guard allowed him to quickly use the toilet and then come back to get his visitor pass. This was because the security assessed if he was to make him stop and wait he’d prob shít his pants.

He was fired because the management (according to their solicitors) felt that the security guard allowing the visitor entry potentially risked exposing staff to COVID-19. Of course there was also the other factors at play in regards to security and making sure only authorised persons enter but the man in question showed the guard an email which was his invite to be there basically.

Now, look, workplace policies and especially security protocols should be followed very strictly, but surely there’s a point where another individual’s personal dignity (and not **** themselves) is a bit more important? As for COVID-19, sounds to me like excuses. The WRC pointed out and I highly agree that dismissal in this case was very heavy handed.

He allowed someone to use the toilet and he got sacked for it like? Absolutely unreal. He was awarded €21k for the unfair dismissal and tbh every cent was deserved. It’s a sad state of affairs honestly when we’re at risk of losing our job just doing the decent thing.

Am I being soft here though? Like I completely appreciate it was a breach of protocol but given the circumstances I think it’s hardly a huge issue? It wasn’t like your man was coming in complaining he’s too busy to sign in and he’d do it later he just couldn’t hold on and needed to go!

I really think the whole COVID angle was a particular nasty way to make a mountain out of a molehill in this case too. Someone **** their pants is surely a bigger biological hazard than touching a door handle or walking through reception to the toilet.

edit; forgot the link lmao

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/security-guard-fired-for-letting-man-into-building-to-use-bathroom-to-avoid-soiling-himself-awarded-21k-42321327.html

Mad_maxx

A sensible ruling

Allinall

What if your man had been pretending and there was a major security breach in the building, putting others in danger?

His job title gives a big clue as to why he was sacked.

I'd imagine the company were more than happy to pay the €21k.

Citrus_8

I completely agree, this looks that someone took a bad managerial decision. Sacking for it was overkill, basically, overreacting. This is not a surprise knowing how many managers aren't worth to be called ones. Many become managers not because of the qualifications, but simply due to being in the company for many years... This situation is clearly an unfair dismissal, if there's no more details which could shift the view towards the direction.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183130#Comment_120183130

He had an email to show he was due to be there so that’s highly unlikely.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183136#Comment_120183136

Stonewall unfair dismissal, incredibly stupid to fight it too

FortuneChip

I think he did the right thing, and this seems like a measured compensation.

Hopefully he finds work where common decency is better tolerated.

I feel being a security guard means he should have the authority to make decisions based on his best judgement. The sacking seems excessive.

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183138#Comment_120183138

If an email was enough for him to gain entry, there wouldn't have been an issue.

Do you really think a print out of an email is that difficult to get?

Again, the clue is in the guys job title.

Donald Trump

Worked for me that time they tried to keep me locked up in The 'Joy.

Ran up to the prison officer at the front and told your man I needed to use the jacks on the other side of the door or I'd piss meself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183169#Comment_120183169

Clearly haven’t a clue have you?

He was sacked because the visitor did not sign in first. He was not at any stage being denied entry he just had to sign the visitors book and receive a badge which is common enough.

But when someone approaches, literally keeled over and tells you hey I’m about to **** my pants here, little details like a visitors badge can wait a minute.

Are you actually suggesting that the security guard deserved to be fired because he did not allow the client to **** himself? Do you disagree that his manager would have been equally as pissed off he didn’t let him go to the toilet or would he have been promoted?

That’s a serious question too. Don’t answer me unless you’re answering that question.

Would the security guard have been in less or no trouble had he refused the man entry without a visitors badge & therefore causing him to soil himself?

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183234#Comment_120183234

I very much have a clue.

There's a reason there are security procedures in premises. The level of security varies and the procedures also vary depending on the perceived risk.

They are not there just for the craic, or for the security guard to apply as he sees fit.

To answer your questions:

No. I don't think the security guard deserved to be fired because he did not allow the client to **** himself. Any he wasn't fired for that.

I don't understand your second question. His manager specifically told him not to let the man in.

I think he would have been in less, or no trouble at all had he refused the man entry without a visitors badge & therefore causing him to soil himself

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183291#Comment_120183291

He told him not to let him in AFTER he sent him to the toilet.

Your statement is contradictory you are saying you agree he shouldn’t have refused him the toilet but agree he should have been fired? He was fired for that very reason. He let him go to the toilet and return for his visitors pass.

Larbre34

I remember an incident in my late Father's place of work many years ago, with some similar hallmarks, which led to the Managing Director's car being boosted and driven straight out the main gate.

The Security Guard should never have been the fallguy for this, the Company is just as liable for failing to have sufficient comfort facilities outside the secure areas.

hynesie08

He probably shouldn't have been sacked, but he's clearly **** at his job and can't be trusted at a point of Access.

Greyfox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183423#Comment_120183423

That's nonsense to expect the toilets to be before the security desk. The company were d*ckheads to sack him for been a human being, they should of used common sense.

mondeoman72

Sadly, company rules trump common sense in a load of instances. A couple of weeks ago, an emergency ambulance was called to a multinational. It arrived under lights and sirens. It was an emergency call. Due to rules are rules, the guide car, which was sent to intercept the ambulance and lead it to the scene, actually stopped at a red traffic light. Said ambulance just took off past it.

No commom sense whatsoever.

cal naughton

The visitor could have had irritable bowel symptom , Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis all which would cause the man diarrhea.

The security guard showed compassion and it was a complete nuclear reaction to which should have been a simple disciplinary action to sack him.

Gregor Samsa

Well, at least we know of one place that we're ok to shít on the ground if we need to. No need to be shielded by a copper's coat or anything.

buried

This sounds like some storyline out of Beverly Hills Cop 4 or something

Kurooi

Just the usual Covid being used as a blanket excuse for everything.

I only feel the court should recognize these slap in the face idiotic notions and fine the company extra for disrespecting their time.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183498#Comment_120183498

Where do the Security lads relieve themselves then?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183777#Comment_120183777

In a bottle. Or they’re sacked.

hynesie08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183777#Comment_120183777

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183839#Comment_120183839

He's half right, you get cover or you contact monitoring to take over control, but I've heard of lads not being able to wait.

(Always no1 BTW, never 2)

Greyfox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183777#Comment_120183777

Inside the building

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183878#Comment_120183878

I was being half facetious as well anyway.

CharlieDickens

He should have been awarded 350k ...

DebDynamite

If allowing him into the building was a security breach as he could’ve been a danger to others, how would signing the visitors book and wearing a pass had made him less of a danger?

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120184067#Comment_120184067

I wonder could you describe the lad who needed the jacks as being "half faecetious"?

Count Dracula

I doubt he was sacked for what he did, you rarely are.

He got sacked because management disliked him and they probably saw an opportunity to get rid of him and went for it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120185371#Comment_120185371

Definitely

Andrea B.

Devil's advocate, as we do not know the industry.

Some (think of minting, vaults etc.) businesses have accredited security certifications required for the industry they are in.

These are heavily audited with strict criteria. A loss of accreditation can lead to them losing a prerequisite to to business, bid for contract and they may have to put in costly mitigation for breaches.

I have observed people missing interviews and not being able to use facility due to their forgetting to bring required ID.

Further, if this breach had led to the individual that was granted entry, subsequently causing an incident or been part of a distraction ploy, I wonder would the judgement have been different.

delboythedub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058282271/security-guard-awarded-21k

Under Irish law would he be obliged to let that person use the toilet as a case comes to mind where a judge fined a man for going to toilet on side of road and said judge told him he was entitled to knock on door of house and request to use toilet.

Andrea B.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120186830#Comment_120186830

Urban myth.

Enoch is holding his piss for a reason.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120186830#Comment_120186830

I mean maybe he is but the homeowner is as entitled to tell you to fcuk off so what then?

That can’t be real or that judge is an idjit. Kinda like saying “well now in fairness you could have held it and found a pertrol station/shopping centre/shop with a toilet”

Potential-Monke

I'll illegal to pee in public, but not poop. But I think only weirdos can do a 2 without a 1...

Also, no, a homeowner doesn't have to let a random person in to use their toilet. A homeowner doesn't have to let anyone in unless they have a warrant or legally enforceable document that entitles them entry without homeowner permission.

BattleCorp

There's a pharma company not too far from me. The entrance to it is on a 4 way roundabout with one entrance/exit being exclusively for the factory.

A member of the public took the wrong exit on the roundabout (very easy to do) and ended up at the barrier beside the security hut. He couldn't reverse back out to the road which would have been dangerous anyway because other workers turning up for their shift were queueing right behind him in their cars waiting to get into the site.

The security guard was left in an awkward situation. He could lift up the barrier, let yer man drive into the site where he could drive around the security hut and back out the exit to the main road. It was a distance of about 100 feet. He decided to let yer man drive into the site and directly back out but yer man's car genuinely stalled and a few lads had to push it around the security hut and back out. No harm done one would think. Eh, not so.

The security guard got reprimanded (not sacked) for letting the guy into the site (in order to get back out) but if he didn't let the guy into the site momentarily, all the other workers queued behind yer man's car wouldn't have been able to get into work.

Common sense is not a flower that grows in everyone's garden.