Quinten Hubbard's former handyman has won an employment tribunal against the infamous Guernsey businessman, claiming he was unfairly dismissed.
The official tribunal panel announced it was ordering Mr Hubbard, as the former owner of FW Rihoy & Son, to pay Kevin Driscoll £18,720, equivalent to six month's wages.
It said: "Having considered all the evidence presented and having due regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal found that, under the provisions of the Employment Protection Law, the Applicant was unfairly dismissed."
Mr Driscoll represented himself at the tribunal, but FW Rihoy & Son and Mr Hubbard did not attend or send a representative.
Overall, the panel concluded the evidence Mr Driscoll gave was "highly credible", and it saw no evidence to suggest fair procedure had been applied to his dismissal.
During the hearing, the applicant showed the panel an email he received on 6 November 2017, where he was told FW Rihoy & Son had ceased trading four days before. The email said "every employee" was already paid, or could expect their final wages.
Mr Driscoll then met with Mr Hubbard, but was told the company could not pay him, so offered a van as a settlement. Mr Hubbard also told Mr Driscoll he could go to a lawyer but would not get anywhere and would not end up with a penny as FW Rihoy & Son Limited had been placed into liquidation as a result of unpaid Income Tax of over £20,000. Mr Hubbard also commented that he did not owe the Applicant a penny as it was the company that did and they had no money, the panel heard.
Quinten Hubbard has made Guernsey headlines recently at the centre of a large group of businesses all folding at once. Many of them still owe a great deal of money to a number of different creditors.
When hearing evidence from the applicant, the panel heard that the supposed redundancies had affected no other members of staff, and he alleged it was because of "friction" between himself and his boss.
This started after Mr Hubbard asked various members of staff to work on a building project where there was allegedly asbestos.
Mr Driscoll queried Mr Hubbard over this, and was told there was a report that proved there was no asbestos in the building. But Mr Driscoll was never actually shown this report, despite asking repeatedly. He said every time he asked to see it, Mr Hubbard would change the subject or refuse. Before long, Mr Driscoll was transferred onto another project, but he kept asking questions because of concerns over his fellow staff members' safety.
It eventually came out that the building did indeed contain asbestos and the site was seized by authorities, but this was after the termination of the applicant's employment.
This query on health & safety was the core reason Mr Driscoll was dismissed, the panel conlcuded.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.