ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001639
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
|
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 |
CA-00002075-001 |
20/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/04/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant was employed as a Supermarket Manager from April 2013 to October 2015 when he was dismissed for gross misconduct. The complainant was suffering from depression and was on medication. The complainant had personal difficulties at the time of the incidents. The complainant did not deny taking the food but was suffering from memory loss issues. The complainant apologised for the incidents and the company were aware of his medical issues.
|
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant was given training on the company policy re purchase of goods which had to be paid for at the time of purchase.
The complainant also received training and signed for the company honesty and disciplinary procedures.
The complainant took a number of food products to the staff canteen and consumed them without paying for the on a number of occasions.
The complainant was questioned on the issues and an investigation took place and the complainant was sent to the company doctor for examination relating to his illnesses.
The complainant was given the right of representation at every stage of the disciplinary process which resulted in a decision to dismiss him for gross misconduct.
The complainant appealed the decision and his appeal was not upheld.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
During the Hearing the claimant accepted that he took the food items without paying but he maintained that this was due to memory problems. At no stage could the complainant show other examples where he had memory problems of any substance. While I accept that the claimant has suffered as a result of losing his job I am of the view that as a result of the claimant holding a position of serious responsibility with the Respondent that the bond of trust has been irrevocably broken between the parties as a result of these incidents. One or two instances of “forgetfulness” may be forgiveable and possibly understandable but in this instance there were a number of instances. The claimant should have been under no illusion from his position and training with the company that the issues that lead to his dismissal would amount to gross misconduct. As a result I find that the claimants dismissal was fair and his claim is not well founded.
Dated: 28th July 2016