Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89223 Case Number: LCR12379 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: D. & E. SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
11. On the basis of the evidence presented the Court is satisfied
that the appellant was unfairly treated. The Court accordingly
recommends that she be given a clear character reference, an
adequate apology and compensation in the sum of #100.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89223 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12379
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: D. & E. SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned left school after completing her
intermediate certificate and attended a F.A.S. skills training
programme from 30th November, 1987 to 3rd June, 1988. She spent
six weeks working in a supermarket in Celbridge on work experience
as part of this programme.
3. Shortly after completing this course she was offered a job at
the then recently opened D & E Supermarket in Leixlip. She was
taken on a three month trial period and her duties included
operating a cash register on the check out and doing shelf work.
She was paid #65 a week gross.
4. On the 8th July, 1988 the worker reported for duty as normal.
She worked packing shelves in the earlier part of the morning and
was then put on the check out. She had problems with the register
she was working on and she was moved to another register while her
own one was being fixed. It broke again after she returned to it
and she spent the rest of the morning packing shelves.
5. After lunch the worker resumed working on her register. Later
in the afternoon, a woman who is a friend of the owners, skipped
the queue and left #7.45 on the register for an item of meat and
walked out. The worker continued to check out the customer she
was dealing with at the time.
6. The woman who left the money on the register was asked by the
owner to come into his shop, buy some articles and leave the exact
amount on the worker's register and walk out. He had arranged
this as part of spot checks he was carrying out in the shop. The
manager had examined the register before the sale, noted the sale
number and checked it again after the sale. Neither checks were
carried out in the presence of the worker concerned.
7. The worker was subsequently summoned to the office where the
owner and the manager were present. She was informed that the
manager could not locate a sale of #7.45 on her register roll
receipt and that her register was #27 short. She was asked to
account for these discrepancies. The worker denied any knowledge
of having taken the money. She was dismissed on the spot and the
Gardai were then called and the worker concerned was charged with
theft. The case came up for hearing in the District Court. The
State did not proceed with the case and entered a nolle prosequi
on 2nd November, 1988.
8. The worker then referred her case to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the
21st April, 1989. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The worker was only 17 years of age at the time of this
incident. She was denied fair procedures in the conduct of
her dismissal. She was not given a chance to state her case
in any just or reasonable manner. She was intimidated by the
attitude of Management and by the fact that the Gardai were
called immediately. She was not invited to have any
independent assistance (whether a friend, trade union official
or her parents) at the critical meeting at which she was
dismissed.
2. The worker did not take the money in question. Two checks
on the tallyroll were made by the manager which give two
different discrepancies. These checks were carried out in an
unsatisfactory manner. They were not done in the presence of
the worker, and they appear to have been carried out far more
quickly than normal cross-checking procedures. Also she
remembers the woman as having passed her till at 4.45 p.m.
rather than between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. In addition she feels
that she may have made a mistake by either checking the item
in under the incorrect heading (i.e. not "meat") or by putting
it into the total without entering it individually.
3. Up to this incident the workers honesty had never been
questioned. In fact on two previous occasions she handed over
large sums of money which she found on the premises. The
worker feels that it will be very difficult for her to obtain
future employment as a result of the incident. She has
already been refused a job (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. Shortly after the worker commenced working on the check out
noticeable discrepancies arose on her roll tally which were as
high as #20 some days. She was spoken to concerning these by
the Manager. The worker replied that she did not know how
these mistakes occurred.
2. The owner of the shop believed that money was being taken
from the tills. He arranged for spot checks to be carried
out. The worker concerned was found to have not to have
registered a sum of #7.45 in respect of an item of meat. In
addition her register was found to be #27 short. She could
not provide satisfactory explanations for these discrepancies
even though she was given ample opportunity to do so. In all
the circumstances the Company had no choice but to dismiss the
worker and hand the matter over to the Gardai. The Company
cannot see any reason why the case did not go a head.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. On the basis of the evidence presented the Court is satisfied
that the appellant was unfairly treated. The Court accordingly
recommends that she be given a clear character reference, an
adequate apology and compensation in the sum of #100.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
10th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.