FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 290/99GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a part-time assistant on the 14th of September, 1998, and was dismissed on the 7th of April, 1999, for a serious breach of duty.
The Company claims, that on the 5th of February, 1999, the worker went on her lunch break at 3 pm and commenced her shopping in the store with a relative who also worked there.
The Company states that when the worker returned to her checkout duties that she commenced to scan the goods which had been selected by her relative. Following a security check it was established that some items had not been scanned and that she had also accepted a Tesco Privilege card for the purpose of obtaining a discount which the presenter was not entitled to. It is alleged that that there was a loss to the Company of £57.42.
The Union claims that the worker did not intend to defraud the Company and that the non-scanning of the items was a mistake. It is also claimed that the Company failed to provide evidence that the worker was fully aware of the Company's policies or that she had been fully trained on checkout duties.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 18th of October, 1999. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"The evidence in this case is clearly overwhelming in the Company's favour and I am satisfied that fair procedures were followed and the dismissal was not unfair".
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 18th of November, 1999 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of February, 2000 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not intend to defraud the Company. The non-scanning of the items was a mistake.
2. The worker did not benefit from the goods which were not scanned.
3. The Company failed to issue the worker with a copy of her contract of employment or Staff Handbook.
4. The punishment does not fit the crime. Where there is an abuse of the sick pay scheme, for example, the punishment is a withdrawal of the scheme and a written warning issued.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker failed to charge for all products resulting in a loss to the Company of £57.42.
2. The worker has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how some products were not scanned and that she accepted a "Privilege card" which belonged to another person.
3. The Company carried out a full and fair investigation and provided the worker with ample opportunity to explain her actions. The worker failed to take this opportunity.
4. The worker was in breach of Company policies and procedures while fully understanding the implications of her actions.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court believes that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are fully supported by the facts of this case.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is upheld and the appeal disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd June, 2000.______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.