EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE - claimant UD1677/2012
Against
EMPLOYER - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey B.L.
Members: Mr T. O'Grady
Mr. S. O'Donnell
heard this claim at Dublin on 3 February 2014
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr Dave Curran, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondent(s) : Purdy Fitzgerald, Solicitors, Kiltartan House, Forster Street, Galway
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The respondent operates a food and beverages business providing food services in Dublin Airport. The general manager (GM) of the respondent company gave evidence of the claimant’s role as a food and beverages associate with responsibility for operating tills, and serving and preparing food. Each employee including the claimant with responsibility for operating the till is provided with extensive training and must read and sign a cashier agreement. The cashier agreement was opened to the Tribunal. The GM explained that the agreement set out the policy and procedures in a step by step manner to protect both the employer and employees in a business which operates cash transactions. A document headed “confirmation of receipt of cashier’s agreement” bearing the signature of the claimant and dated 26 April 2008 was submitted by the respondent.
A complaint to head office about the claimant led to the GM commencing an investigation. This was at a time when a number of other employees were under investigation for breaches of the cashier’s agreement. The GM could not confirm the date he received the complaint but estimated that it was May or June 2012. Having observed the claimant and a number of transactions over a period of weeks the GM suspended the claimant by letter dated the 17 July 2012. An investigation meeting was held on the 18 July 2012. The GM conducted that meeting and put a series of breaches of the cashier’s agreement to the claimant. The witnesses confirmed the claimant was not provided with the list of alleged breaches in advance of the meeting, however, he held a second investigation meeting on the 20 July to give the claimant the opportunity to explain each of the alleged breaches.
A disciplinary meeting was held on the 25 July 2012. The witness took the decision to dismiss the claimant and notified him by letter dated 27 July 2012 which stated that the reason for dismissal was the continuous and repeated breaches of the company cashier procedure.
The claimant was offered the right to appeal. The appeal hearing took place on the 28 August 2012 and the dismissal was upheld.
There was no evidence of loss of revenue submitted by the respondent and no Garda investigation took place.
GM confirmed that a number of other employees were dismissed around that time for repeated breaches of cashier procedures. He denied that the dismissals were in any way connected to the closure of two of the respondent’s food outlets in 2012.
The claimant commenced employment in November 2005. He was initially employed in food preparation in the kitchen and in 2008 for a number of months was assigned to the bar. It was at that stage he signed receipt of the cashier policy in order for him to operate the till in the bar. No specific training was provided and he had not been given an opportunity to read the policy before signing. He returned to kitchen duties until February 2012 when he was assigned to front of house duties. It was the claimant’s evidence that he first viewed the complete cashier agreement at the first investigation meeting. His training was on the job training only and he received no formal training. This evidence was supported by a former supervisor who recalled getting the claimant to sign the cashier agreement only.
Determination
- It was not clear if the claimant was ever given a copy of the cashier policy document. Although the respondent submitted a signed receipt that the claimant had received the document the claimant’s evidence was that in order to commence till duty he was asked to sign receipt without any opportunity to read the document or take a copy away to read.
- On the face of it the claimant was not given adequate training and was not made fully aware of the importance of following the cashier policy document.
- Having said that, it would appear disingenuous of the claimant to suggest he wasn’t au fait with the till procedures.
- The respondent did not take any immediate action but instead chose to monitor the claimant and months later put a series of incidents to him.
The Tribunal having carefully considered all of the evidence find that the respondent was procedurally defective and consequently the dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal awards the claimant compensation in the sum of €8,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)