Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90268 Case Number: LCR12956 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MOGENSEN LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a shop assistant concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not find adequate grounds for this workers
dismissal in the circumstances described. The Court recommends
payment of #500 compensation for her unfair dismissal.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90268 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12956
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MOGENSEN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY PAUL O'SHEA & COMPANY SOLICITORS)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a shop assistant concerning
her alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company,
which trades as Centra Shopping Centre, Castleknock, as a shop
assistant in May, 1989. Her duties included checkout work, shelf
stocking, cleaning and unpacking of goods on delivery. On
Tuesday, 27th February, 1990, the owner informed the shop
assistant that she was being suspended from work as he suspected
she had taken and not paid for two packets of crisps on the
previous Saturday, 24th February, 1990. The shop assistant denied
any theft and said any goods taken by her were paid for. On the
afternoon of 27th February, 1990, the shop assistant phoned to
inquire if she would be needed the following day. The owner told
her that he felt that her employment could not continue in view of
what had transpired and made arrangements for her to collect
monies owing to her and leave back her uniform. The Union claimed
that the shop assistant was dismissed unfairly and referred the
matter to the Labour Court on 22nd May, 1990, for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's investigation of the matter on
26th June, 1990, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The owner of the shop accused the shop assistant of the
theft of some crisps. This accusation was confirmed to her
father. The assistant categorically denies having taken any
crisps without payment and feels agrieved that she should lose
employment for no more than a suspicion by the owner.
3. 2. There is absolutely no evidence of theft against the shop
assistant. On the day of the alleged theft, 24th February,
1990, there were five assistants working in the shop during
the course of the day - any one of whom could have taken the
crisps or indeed sold them to customers.
3. The Union further contends that if the assistant had taken
the crisps, it would hardly be a sackable offence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the commencement of her employment, the shop
assistant's work was unsatisfactory. She would always try to
get the easier jobs, her attitude to customers and staff was
unhelpful and she would leave the checkout unattended. On one
occasion when approached about taking an unauthorised
cigarette break, she initially denied she had taken one,
subsequently admitting she had. This left the owner with the
impression that he could not rely on the truthfulness of her
responses.
2. On Monday, 23rd February, 1990, the owner discovered that
a number of packets of crisps were missing from a box in the
storeroom. The shop assistant had originally suggested that
the owner should stock this type of crisp. The owner checked
the staff book to see if they had been taken by the staff on
credit. The crisps were not entered in the staff book. All
other staff on duty that day (the shop assistant concerned was
on a day off) were questioned about the missing crisps. They
all denied taking them. When the shop assistant reported for
work she admitted she had eaten and paid for the crisps. The
owner checked thoroughly and came to the conclusion that more
crisps were missing than accounted for and more importantly
that the shop assistant said she had paid for more crisps than
was otherwise verified to the owner.
3. The owner was unhappy with the shop assistants explanation
and felt that in the circumstances her employment could not
continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not find adequate grounds for this workers
dismissal in the circumstances described. The Court recommends
payment of #500 compensation for her unfair dismissal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
___20th___July,____1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman