FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOOTS RETAIL (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS & EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-061277-Ir-08.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is an Operations Assistant who worked in the cash office in Boots Retail, Liffey Valley. She has been working in the store since 1998. It was the worker's job (along with a colleague) to count the coins left in the till from the day before. The notes left over from that day were brought to the cash office every night. The two workers would calculate the amount of money/floats needed for the 38 tills in the store. The case relates to an incident that happened on the 18th November, 2007. The following is, briefly, what happened: on the morning of 18th November, a colleague of the worker's brought it to the attention of the Pharmacy Manager that a bundle of notes - €150 - had been left out at the till. There were no notes in the till at the time. An investigation took place on the 8th December, 2007. The worker explained how herself and two colleagues - one who would not normally be there - had dealt with the cash on the morning of the 18th November. She accepted that the €150 had been left aside but claims that the third colleague, who was not familiar with procedures, was responsible. The worker concerned believed that the notes had been put in the till. As a result of the investigation the worker was issued with a final written warning, to be left on her file for 12 months. The worker appealed the warning but it was upheld following a hearing. (One of these workers concerned also received a final written warning which was not appealed).
The worker referred her case to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"The final written warning be reduced to a verbal warning and the claimant receive €1,000 as compensation."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd October, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th January, 2009.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The incident constituted a failure to protect the Company's assets and was serious enough to merit a final written warning.
2. At no stage during the investigation did the worker deny her actions. In fact she admitted that what she did was wrong. The fact that what happened was as a result of human error does not absolve her from responsibility.
3. The Company has acted in a fair and professional manner towards the worker at all time during the investigation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had an unblemished record for the 10 years she was employed prior to the incident.
2. What happened was simple human error. The worker believed that her colleague had counted and dispensed the €150 into the till. The worker had been given additional duties shortly before the incident and this had made her anxious about dealing with the money.
3. The worker was upset by what happened and her self-confidence suffered as a result. She was removed from her job which she liked and is currently stacking shelves.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions made to it.
In all the circumstances outlined, the Court, while acknowledging that some sanction was merited, has come to the conclusion that a verbal warning, with a 6-month lifespan, would have sufficed and should be substituted in this case.
The Court also feels that, rather than an award of monetary compensation, the more appropriate course of action, given the worker's unblemished record and length of service, would be for the Company to meet at the earliest opportunity with the Claimant (and her representative of choice if desired) with a view to agreeing an assignment within the store more appropriate to her experience and service.
The Court so decides and varies the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th January, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.