EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Ann Marie Lynch
- claimant UD461/2015
MN219/2015
Against
Dunnes Stores
- respondent
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: Ms. E. Kearney B.L
Members: Mr. W. O'Carroll
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Galway on 10th June 2015
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr. John Carty, Mandate Trade Union, Mary Street, Galway
Respondent(s) : Mr Marcus Dowling B.L instructed by Ms Deirdre Lynch,
Byrne Wallace, Solicitors, 88 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The claimant was employed at the Westside Shopping Centre, Galway branch of the respondent company. A member of the management team received a telephone call from a duty manager on the 14 August 2012 advising her that the store had failed a Garda purchase check. The witness (PK) was responsible for investigating the incident. A statement was taken from the claimant and CCTV footage was examined. An investigation meeting was held with the claimant on the 20 August 2012. At the meeting the claimant admitted she had requested identification proof of age from a customer who was purchasing alcohol and although he could not provide identification she proceeded to sell the alcohol. The claimant apologised for her wrongdoing. The claimant did not make any reference to any medical issue on the day of the incident as a reason for her actions. PK suspended the claimant with pay pending a disciplinary meeting.
The grocery manager (KC) met the claimant one week later. He took the decision to dismiss the claimant based on breach of the law and the breach of company policy in relation to the sale of alcohol to a minor. The witness was satisfied that the claimant’s blood pressure problem was not a factor as at the time of the breach she took the decision to proceed with the sale having not obtained identification. The company policy is “no identification, no sale”. The witness confirmed to the Tribunal that the claimant had no outstanding disciplinary matters on her record at the time and did not accept that the claimant was under any pressure to attend work while ill or unfit.
The claimant appealed her dismissal to the regional manager (JK). JK upheld the dismissal on the grounds that it was not an error of judgement by the claimant as she asked for identification from the purchaser and recited the policy to the customer before continuing with the sale.
The claimant had worked for the respondent company for eleven years. She worked in the role of sales assistant with duties including support to check-out area, customer services and the training of new employees. She was unwell on the 13 August 2012 suffering from high blood pressure but decided to attend work as she felt under pressure due to upcoming holidays she had booked. On the 14 August her supervisor (AT) had given her permission to have her blood pressure checked during her shift and she confirmed it was beginning to return to normal. The claimant was approaching the end of her shift when she sold the alcohol to a minor without any identification. She attended an investigation meeting on the 16 August taking full responsibility for the incident and apologised for letting her employer down. The claimant submitted that the sanction of dismissal was not reasonable as she was a long serving good employee.
Determination
The Tribunal noted that there was a considerable and unusual level of agreement between the parties in this case. The claimant from the earliest possible occasion admitted her wrongdoing.
The Tribunal find that unfortunately the claimant simply made a wrong decision at the end of her shift in allowing, after requesting identification, a minor to proceed to purchase alcohol, having told the minor that the next customer could be a Garda, and to bring identification the next time, in clear contravention of company policy and the law.
There was no medical evidence tendered to support the contention of a medical impairment affecting the claimant’s judgement. Indeed, the evidence was that the claimant’s blood pressure was regularising at the time of the incident.
The Tribunal finds taking all the circumstances of this particular case into account that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate. The claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 and Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005 are dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)