Man who used company materials to build house loses claim

A manager who was sacked after 45 years at the Murphy construction group when the firm learned its machines, staff and materials were used to build a house for his son has lost his claim for unfair dismissal.

In 2024, Dermot Murphy and his son were both sacked from senior positions at Murphy International Limited in the wake of a complaint by an anonymous whistleblower, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard.

The protected disclosure led to an investigation into allegations that the complainant had "facilitated the unauthorised use" of the firm's labour, plant, equipment and materials for the benefit of his son.

Mr Murphy was plant operations manager at the Irish arm of the multinational construction group since 1989, with roughly a decade's service there before that, the tribunal heard. His son was at the company 20 years when he was sacked, the tribunal was told.

The tribunal rejected Dermot Murphy’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in a decision published today.

The construction firm’s security manager, Martin Kerr, told the WRC that data from the company’s vehicle tracking system showed that 62 deliveries were made to Mr Murphy’s son’s house site by a dozen different vehicles and drivers.

Company plant left at house site for 273 days

The tracking data, spanning nearly two years from July 2022 to May 2024, also showed that eight pieces of company plant were left at the house site for a total of 273 days, Mr Kerr told the tribunal.

Asked to account for this by Mr Kerr at an investigation meeting, the complainant said he knew "idle plant" was in use at his son’s site, but claimed it was "not unusual for company plant to be used by employees for private use", Mr Kerr said.

Mr Murphy did not deny the machinery was put to work on his son’s site without permission, Mr Kerr said.

When this position was put to the company disciplinary officer Brendan O’Hara, he said that might be so if a worker "asked to borrow a vehicle".

"They would certainly not have used plant and equipment on the industrial scale seen in this case," Mr O’Hara said.

Mr Murphy told the WRC that it was "common practice within the company to use company plant and machinery for personal use". He did so when he built his own house in 1984, he added.

He said he had "never personally directed" machinery to his son’s site.

"It had happened over a two-year period, so it was not like it was in and out of the yard every day," he told the WRC.

Questions asked about stone, scaffolding deliveries

Questions were also raised by the company about orders placed on its accounts for the delivery of three loads of stone and €3,000 worth of scaffolding to the house site, as well as material used in the manufacture of a set of gates in a company workshop.

Mr Murphy’s position was that he had also ordered stone for the company’s use at a machinery compound and that the company was invoiced for the three loads sent to his son’s site in error. They had been paid for in cash, he said.

He said he put the scaffolding order through the company system on the understanding his son or the builder on the house site was to pay for them, as his son had told him it was "already cleared" by the relevant manager at their employer.

Mr Murphy said a purchase order for €1,500 in steel he was questioned about was not the same material which was used to manufacture gates for his son’s site in a company workshop.

Mr Murphy said he had also assumed his son had a more senior manager’s permission to have the gates made.

An €800 bill to have the gates powder-coated was settled by the employer as a "short-term solution" because the other company "would not take cash", he said.

It was "not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things", the complainant added.

Adjudication officer Orla Jones wrote in her decision that it was clear from the company’s investigation that the complainant "had assisted and in some cases procured" equipment and materials for his son.

"I am satisfied that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair," she wrote, dismissing the case.

Glenn Cooper of Dundon Callanan LLP appeared for Mr Murphy in the matter, with solicitor Alastair Purdy representing Murphy International.