EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Vishwarajsingh Hallooman,
- claimant UD1103/2013
Against
Petrogas Group Limited T/A Waterfront Services Station,
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran B.L.
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Dublin on 4th November 2014
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr William Fossett B.L. instructed by Mr Coleman Ryan, Ryan Solicitors,
D2 Medical Centre, 1 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2
Respondent(s) : Mr David O’Riordan, Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors,
74 Pembroke Road, Dublin 4
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The claimant was employed by the respondent at a service station which operated twenty four hours. The Tribunal heard evidence from the manager (RA) of the service station. The manager noted that there were shortages in stock levels in the off-licence area. In order to investigate this stock problem he commenced watching CCTV. One morning it came to his attention that the claimant had left a note for another employee to scan in wine that day as he was unable to scan alcohol products outside of the legal selling hours for alcohol during the previous shift. This fact was not in dispute between the parties.
The witness explained that the till scanning system is set up to prevent alcohol sales outside of the legal selling hours. The manager consulted with the area manager before inviting the claimant to an investigation meeting. The claimant was later invited to a disciplinary meeting. The minutes of the meeting were opened to the Tribunal. The witness met with the area manager following the disciplinary meeting and the claimant was dismissed from his employment by letter dated the 27 June 2013. The manager recommended dismissal on the grounds that the claimant had carried out an illegal sale putting the respondent’s business at risk of loosing its licence or closure. The manager denied he asked the claimant to resign at any stage during the process.
The area manager told the Tribunal that the site manager had informed him of missing stock wine in particular. Over the course of checking CCTV the manager noticed alcohol being sold at the hatch. He advised the site manager to invoke the disciplinary procedure. Following investigation he took the decision to dismiss the claimant. The witness did not accept that it was inappropriate that he was named as the appeals officer. With regard to the missing stock the witness could not recall if they had got to the bottom of that matter. He could not recall the claimant requesting that CCTV footage for the two days after the incident be examined.
The claimant was employed for six years prior to his dismissal. He had no disciplinary issues or previous warnings on his record. On the night of the incident he was working on the night shift commencing at 11pm. He accepted he sold alcohol to his friend on the 20 June 2013. At a meeting on the 24 June he told the site manager everything. The manager made reference to missing wine at that meeting. He was suspended at the meeting. He attended the disciplinary meeting on the 27 June and the issues were discussed. He was asked to return after one hour as the site manager needed to consult the area manager. On his return the manager asked him to resign or he would be dismissed. The claimant maintained that the manager himself and his girlfriend had purchased wine outside of the legal selling hours and that this was a regular practice by employees. Following his dismissal his wife wrote to the area manager on his behalf to appeal his dismissal. The area manager responded saying he was going on holiday.
Determination
The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced at the hearing. It was noted in particular that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent that the claimant was involved in the issue around missing stock in the off-licence. The Tribunal considered that the disciplinary process was very rushed in that an incident took place on the 20 June 2013, the investigation meeting was held on the 24 June and the dismissal took place on the 27 June. The claimant was left with limited time to prepare for the meetings.
No consideration was given to the fact that the claimant had no previous disciplinary issues and the respondent’s area manager in his evidence was unaware of the claimant’s clean record.
The Tribunal determine that the evidence did not amount to gross misconduct and therefore the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal awards the claimant €8,400.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)