EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Janet Moloney, UD1165/2012
MN724/2012
against
Padraig Broderick Limited,
Under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr P. Hurley
Members: Mr W. O'Carroll
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Limerick on 29th April 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Plunkett Hayes, Solicitors, Croom, Co. Limerick
Respondent: HR & Business Solutions, Pier 17, Dingle Road, Tralee, Co Kerry
Summary of respondent’s case
The respondent in this case is a supermarket. PB told the Tribunal that the premises had a CCTV system that had 32 cameras and 5 monitors. Customers and staff can see themselves on the system and staff were fully aware of its operation. Regular meetings were held regarding security. The staff contract was very clear in relation to personal purchases.
During a stocktake of high value goods on 10th April PB became aware of a missing bottle of vodka. He traced it back to a transaction on 9th April and found the claimant to be the customer who made a number of purchases at the time. CCTV revealed a work colleague of the claimants not scanning some of the items including the bottle of vodka. Further viewing of CCTV revealed another five/seven instances of goods not being paid for. He was shocked, staff were aware that the business was under pressure and hoped there would be some explanation.
PB spoke with the other member of staff who said that she felt pressurized by the claimant. He gave the claimant a letter, advising her that a disciplinary meeting would occur and if events were proven it may lead to her dismissal. He also gave her a copy of her contract and the grievance procedures.
The claimant declined to bring a witness, declined to watch the CCTV or to look at the till receipts. She claimed not to know anything about the instances. She was suspended and a further meeting took place one week later, again she had nothing further to say or add. PB dismissed her by letter on 1st May. The claimant was given time to appeal but didn’t.
Summary of claimant’s case
The claimant told the Tribunal that she was handed a letter, didn’t have time to read it and was taken to the office. She was told that on 9th April some items were not charged for. PB showed her stills of photographs and she told him that if she had known what was going on she would have told him. She was suspended and when she met with him the following Thursday he told her not to worry, the other girl had paid in full for all the items stuff and he’d talk to her on Monday. At the Monday meeting he told her he had a file prepared for the Garda and that her job was gone.
Under cross examination the claimant said that she had no reason to doubt the girl on the till. She put stuff on the counter and assumed it was being charged for. Her change would just get thrown into her bag so she had no idea that she wasn’t being charged or paying for all her items.
Determination:
In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant acted in an improper manner and that her behaviour gave rise to a breach of trust and confidence which gave the respondent no option but to dismiss her. The claimant was offered an appeal but did not avail of this offer.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the dismissal was not unfair and the claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 fail and are hereby dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)