A truck driver’s alleged incident of defecating in a client’s loading bay has resulted in a dispute between the driver and his former employer, All Star Logistics Ltd. The driver, Edward Riordan, claims that his employer discriminated against him based on age and disability, leading to a reduction in his hours and subsequent termination. The incident, which Riordan attributed to an urgent case of diarrhea resulting from a peptic ulcer condition, put the company’s relationship with its client at risk.
Riordan admitted to the Workplace Relations Commission that he had indeed relieved himself under the truck due to the absence of a nearby restroom. He justified his decision not to report the incident, stating that he believed the matter would be resolved by a thunderstorm washing away the evidence. Riordan, 72 years old, explained that his peptic ulcer condition had improved over time with medication and the cessation of smoking, up until September 2022.
During the proceedings, Riordan’s barrister presented a doctor’s report stating that the complainant experienced a gastrointestinal flare that month, leading to cramping and an urgent need for a bowel movement. However, the company disputed the report, citing the inconsistency between the reported diarrhea and the solid excrement found by one of Riordan’s colleagues. Riordan argued that he believed it to be diarrhea, while the company representative questioned how solid feces ended up in the loading bay.
When asked why he didn’t use tissues from his truck’s cab to clean up, Riordan stated that it would have been ineffective in a thunderstorm. He further explained that he did not report the incident because he considered it a minor issue. Only two Polish workers were present at the client’s site during his final run of the day, and there were no staff members from his employer available.
Another truck driver employed by the company, Helen Kelleher, testified that she discovered the excrement on a piece of wood in the loading bay and promptly reported it to a Flextronic worker. Kelleher mentioned that the feces had a consistency similar to mashed potatoes.
The company stated that after becoming aware of the incident, they instructed their transport manager not to assign Riordan any driving jobs. The HR manager emphasized that the decision to terminate Riordan’s employment was not solely based on the defecation incident but also on his failure to clean it up or report the matter to either Flextronics or his employer.
The company’s managing director, Paudie Murphy, denied any discrimination based on age or disability. He mentioned that Riordan was hired at the age of 70, highlighting the financial advantage of employing drivers beyond retirement age due to lower employer’s PRSI rates. Murphy claimed that Riordan had not disclosed his medication or peptic ulcer disorder in two medical forms he had signed and only mentioned it during a disciplinary meeting.
The case concluded with both sides presenting their arguments concerning the investigation, disciplinary proceedings, and appeals process. The complainant argued that there were defects in these processes, while the company asserted that these issues were irrelevant to the discrimination claim and no evidence of discrimination had been established.
The adjudicating officer, Ewa Sobanska, will consider the evidence presented and deliver her decision in writing to the involved parties in due course.
