Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/93/164 Case Number: LCR14077 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MISTER MINIT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court was presented with a number of contentious points in
this case. While accepting the Company's entitlement to engage in
security procedures, it is essential in the Court's opinion that
conclusive proof is available to it in the event of an allegation
of an irregularity. While it is not the function of the Court to
dictate the manner in which irregularity checks are carried out it
does appear to it that on this occasion the manner in which it was
carried out resulted in a position wherein it was a matter of one
person's version of events versus that of another. The Court
notes that the appellant consistently refuted the incident in
question, while the company on the basis of the report by the
security personnel maintained that they had reasonable grounds for
implementing disciplinary action.
It is apparent to the Court that the appellant, while disputing
the incident, had, in the course of conversation, referred to
earlier irregularities by him, and that on the basis of a
combination of the incident on the 2nd February, 1993, and these
references by him, the company decided on dismissal. It appears
to the Court, having regard to the fact that the reference to
previous irregular practices emerged on a voluntary basis, that it
was somewhat unreasonable to couple them with the specific
incident of the 2nd February, 1993, for the purpose of arriving at
a decision of dismissal.
In conclusion, the Court is of the opinion, in all the
circumstances, that dismissal in this instance was too severe a
penalty and recommends it be substituted by a period of suspension
ending on the date of issue of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th May, 1993 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93164 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14077
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MISTER MINIT
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Mister Minit Plc. operates in twenty six countries
worldwide and employs 36 workers in 20 shops in Ireland.
2. On the 2nd February, 1993 the security firm used by the
Company carried out a test purchase in their Artane Castle
Branch. The security firm reported irregularities in the
till procedures arising out of which a disciplinary interview
was held with the worker concerned. The allegation was put
to the worker and he denied any deliberate breach of
procedures. In further conversation the worker did admit to
an incident in the past when he was left short by a customer
and in order to compensate rang up an incorrect amount on the
till for the next purchase. The Company subsequently decided
to terminate the worker's employment for gross misconduct and
the use of irregular till procedures.
3. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 22nd
February, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the issue
was referred by the Labour Relations Commision to the Labour
Court on the 9th March, 1993. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 23rd April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The evidence of the security firm is far from sufficient
to justify any charge of dishonesty.
2. The only evidence presented was a photo-copy of a till
roll which proves absolutely nothing.
3. The worker is adamant that in any transaction conducted
by him during that day he input the correct price, tendered a
receipt and gave the correct change.
4. It is possible for any operator to hit a wrong button on
a till.
5. It is not possible to state that all customers are
handed a receipt.
6. There should be a great deal more reliable evidence
before a worker's livelihood and integrity are put in
question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The involvement of staff in irregular till procedures is
considered to be gross misconduct.
2. The worker was aware of the cash and till procedures.
3. The shop was not busy at the time of the incident and
therefore this does not represent mitigating circumstances
for the irregular procedure.
4. The Company has used the same security firm for the last
12 years to carry out their test purchases.
5. The Company has always treated irregular till procedures
as a dismissible offence.
6. All staff are fully aware of the fact that test
purchases are carried out and of the importance of adhering
to the strict company procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was presented with a number of contentious points in
this case. While accepting the Company's entitlement to engage in
security procedures, it is essential in the Court's opinion that
conclusive proof is available to it in the event of an allegation
of an irregularity. While it is not the function of the Court to
dictate the manner in which irregularity checks are carried out it
does appear to it that on this occasion the manner in which it was
carried out resulted in a position wherein it was a matter of one
person's version of events versus that of another. The Court
notes that the appellant consistently refuted the incident in
question, while the company on the basis of the report by the
security personnel maintained that they had reasonable grounds for
implementing disciplinary action.
It is apparent to the Court that the appellant, while disputing
the incident, had, in the course of conversation, referred to
earlier irregularities by him, and that on the basis of a
combination of the incident on the 2nd February, 1993, and these
references by him, the company decided on dismissal. It appears
to the Court, having regard to the fact that the reference to
previous irregular practices emerged on a voluntary basis, that it
was somewhat unreasonable to couple them with the specific
incident of the 2nd February, 1993, for the purpose of arriving at
a decision of dismissal.
In conclusion, the Court is of the opinion, in all the
circumstances, that dismissal in this instance was too severe a
penalty and recommends it be substituted by a period of suspension
ending on the date of issue of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th May, 1993 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.