Cork Apple worker found with explosive substance at work party insists he is ‘not a criminal’

A former Apple worker in Cork who lost his job after traces of an explosive substance were found on his bag has appealed an award of €4,500 after a ruling that he was unfairly dismissed in order to seek his reinstatement by the company.

Stanislav Ivanov, a former technical support advisor with Apple at the company’s Holyhill campus in Cork, told a hearing of the Labour Court that he had appealed a ruling in his favour by the Workplace Relations Commission as he wanted former colleagues to see he was “not some type of criminal.” 

“I want to clear my reputation,” said Mr Ivanov.

While he had originally sought reinstatement in lodging an appeal, Mr Ivanov said he did not now intend to return to working with Apple as he accepted trust between the parties was broken.

Christmas party incident

The appellant was dismissed following a disciplinary process after traces of Tetryl, an explosive substance used in detonators, were discovered by Apple security staff carrying out a check on his bag as he entered the company’s Christmas party being held in a football stadium in Cork on December 7, 2018.

Mr Ivanov, who maintained that he had not come in contact with any explosives, refused to allow security staff to examine the contents of his bag.

Subsequent swab tests of his workstation and power switch on his work computer on December 13, 2018, also tested positive for an unspecified explosive substance.

Gardaí carried out a search of Mr Ivanov’s house on December 14, 2018, but nothing illegal was found.

Original WRC hearing

In Mr Ivanov’s original claim for unfair dismissal, the WRC ruled that security staff had no authority to search his bag without his permission and should have called the gardaí.

The WRC said it was “incredible” that Mr Ivanov’s workstation and computer were the only locations where traces of the explosive substance were found as they could not be the only touch points he had in Apple’s offices.

Apple’s employee relations manager, Darragh Whooley, said the company was not contesting the WRC’s ruling that the dismissal of Mr Ivanov was unfair and it was happy to pay the €4,500 compensation.

However, Mr Whooley said it would present a significant challenge for Apple to accept Mr Ivanov’s reinstatement to his former role given the nature of the case.

“Essentially the relationship and bond of trust is irrevocably broken,” said Mr Whooley.

He claimed Mr Ivanov had never provided a reasonable explanation for the serious allegations against him and Apple had a duty of care not just to its staff but to the wider community.

In evidence, Mr Ivanov said former colleagues, friends and people in his social circle “almost disappeared” following his dismissal by Apple.

“A lot of people stopped communicating with me and they distanced themselves,” he added.

Mr Ivanov said the manner in which he had lost his job had left him in a very bad psychological state and he had to leave Ireland as he could not afford to pay rent or bills if unemployed.

He told the Labour Court he eventually found a job in Bulgaria after nine months which paid €800 less per month than his role in Apple, although he had recently moved to Britain to take up a new position.

Today’s ruling

The deputy chairperson of the Labour Court, Tom Geraghty, criticised both parties for the lack of information contained in their submissions to the court.

Mr Geraghty ruled that there should be a complete new hearing on all facts of the case and adjourned the hearing until a future date.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...