Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An employer

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-00011121-001

03/05/2017

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent   on 11/08/2008. His duties included driving for deliveries, store work and   shop work. The Complainant was dismissed on 14^th April 2017 after   being accused of stealing stock without paying for it.

Both the Complainant and Respondent were legally   represented at hearing, both representatives submitted comprehensive written   submissions.

The Manager of the shop whilst undertaking a review of   CCTV in relation to other unrelated   matters on Friday the 7^th April 2017 identified the Complainant as appearing to remove an   item of stock the previous night. Following a quick check by the manager an item   of stock was identified as missing from the shop. This was JLM extreme clean   which has a retail value of €45.00 +vat.   No distribution order could be identified on the shop system for the   missing stock item. All staff were   then asked collectively by the manager if they had any knowledge of the   missing item or if they had anything to charge to their account. Everyone denied knowledge. The complainant   subsequently came to Mr. Walsh and advised that he had taken the item and   offered to pay for it.

As the Complainant’s actions in taking company property   without permission was considered to be an act of gross misconduct Respondent   manager suspended the Complainant with pay with effect from Monday 10^th   April pending an investigation of the matter.

Following an investigation, the matter was the subject of   a disciplinary hearing by a Director of the Company. This was held on the 14^th April the   Complainant offered no explanation for his actions other than to advise that   others within the Company had engaged in theft however he was unable or   unwilling to provide any facts or other evidence to support such a   claim. The Complainant was given every   opportunity to address the matter and full consideration was given by the   Director to every aspect of the matter. However, following this the Director decided   on the balance of probability that the Complainant had engaged in theft which   constituted gross misconduct.   On the   basis, that the Company had zero tolerance to theft the decision was taken to   dismiss the Complainant. In coming to that decision, the Director was aware   of the consequences of his decision on the Complainant but in the nature of   the business where trust and confidence is paramount he had no other option

Having been advised of the decision to dismiss him, the   Complainant exercised an option to resign, the issue of an appeal therefore   in accordance with Company procedures became moot and Mr. Gilligan ceased   employment with the Company on the 15^th April.

Company Position

It is the position of the Company that if the Complainant was   dismissed that the dismissal was on the basis of Section 6 of the Unfair   Dismissals Act. Section 6 (1) and (4) quoted.

It is the position of the Company that the decision to dismiss the   Complainant related solely to his conduct.

The Company   operates a scheme where all staff members can purchase products at a   significant discount. The Complainant would have been very familiar with the   procedure for members of staff to purchase stock for personal use as he had   done so on numerous occasions before however on this occasion he made no   attempt to do so. Adhering to this process would at maximum take approximately   1 minute to undertake. Even if the   Complainant was in a hurry to depart the shop that day, he could have   utilised this opportunity to purchase the product on the staff discount   system the next morning when he commenced work. The matter was not raised with staff until   approximately 11.30 am and the Complainant would have been present in the   shop from 8.30 am. It was also open to   the Complainant at any time to ask one of his colleagues to charge the stock   item to him but chose not to do so.

It is the   position of the Company that the Complainant appropriated the property of the   Respondent without the consent of the company and with the intention of   depriving the Company of the benefit of this property. The Complainant’s explanation   that he would pay for the product and therefore that the consent could be   achieved subsequent to his actions was not accepted by the Company as a   reasonable explanation having given full consideration to the circumstances   of the matter. Nor was the Complainant’s assertion that other employees were   engaged in theft acceptable as being mitigation for his actions

The basic facts   in the case were not disputed in that it was accepted by the Complainant that   he had removed property from the shop in circumstances where he was he was   the last member of staff to exit the premises. It is wrong, unless   authorised, for employees to remove stock from the shelves and to hold it for   later purchase as appears to have been the explanation offered by the   claimant. If this was the case the following   morning, he could have brought the item in with him and either charged it to   himself or asked one of his colleagues to do so.

The Company   applied its disciplinary process to the Complainant was suspended on full pay   pending an investigation and he was informed of the full details of the   allegations against him. After the investigation, the matter was then the   subject of a disciplinary hearing. The   Complainant was made fully aware at all times of the allegation being made   against him and was given every opportunity to provide an explanation to this   allegation. He was allowed   representation at the formal disciplinary meeting. Fair procedures were followed in the   disciplinary process and it was conducted in accordance with the principles   of natural justice.

The Company’s   Grievance & Disciplinary procedure confirms that Theft will be considered   an act of gross misconduct. The Complainant was aware at all times that the   taking of Company goods without permission would be treated as a very serious   offence. The Company believes that in all the circumstances of the case, the   Company was justified in his dismissal for misconduct.

It is an   accepted principle in Unfair Dismissals cases involving theft that the value   of the goods is not relevant, and an employer is entitled to have a   zero-tolerance policy when it comes to theft or fraud.  

The Complainant   did not offer a satisfactory explanation for his conduct in taking the item   or why he failed to utilise the staff stock buying system.

As part of the   investigation the Company examined its CCTV in detail to determine if there   was any basis to explain why the Claimant had done what he did. This included   examination for any evidence such as circumstances that he tried to access   the staff system before he left, or whether anything happened that might have   disturbed his concentration or would have deflected an intention to log in   and pay for this stock item however there is absolutely no evidence to   support such a contention in fact the opposite is the case

The Company   operates a zero tolerance to matters of theft whilst it has not had any   previous incidence of theft involving an employee from the shop which is part   of a wider company structure it has dismissed an employee for theft in the   other company.

The nature of   the Company’s business where orders are delivered on a daily business to   customers and where the person delivering such stock has sole responsibility   for same means that the Company must have absolute trust and confidence in   all of its employees where this trust and confidence is damaged it cannot be   repaired.

The question is   that having considered all of the facts of the case whether it was reasonable   for the Company to dismiss. It is the position of the Company that it   was. The claimant did not offer a   satisfactory explanation for the specific incident. The issue was such that it went to the   heart of the relationship of trust and confidence between the claimant and   the respondent. The Company that it was reasonable to conclude that the   claimant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct. This being the case the   appropriate sanction was dismissal.

Legal Issues.

The Company relies on the decision of Clarke   J in Martina   Hestor (appellant) v Dunnes Stores Ltd (respondent) Appeal of UD 38/87   M134 [1990] E.L.R. 12. In circumstances similar to this case where   he advised “The matter called for a reasonable explanation, and   I am satisfied that as Mrs Donnelly stated, something more was reasonably   required than an affirmation of failure to remember. The decision to dismiss   was made because no sufficient explanation was, in the view of management   personnel, given. The situation was obviously one calculated to arouse deep   suspicion and requiring a satisfactory explanation. In the circumstances the   management did not act unfairly or without justification in all the   circumstances of the dismissal.”

A similar position   was followed by the Circuit Court in Deegan v Dunnes Stores [UD202/2012,   MN152/2012] Dunnes had an employee purchases policy. In this case Dunnes   required employees who purchase food on the premises should get their receipt   signed by a store manager. Store manager became aware that there were serious   breaches of company policy in the deli area of the store in relation to the   employee purchases policy. Accordingly, CCTV cameras were installed. On   viewing CCTV footage recorded on the cameras he invited the claimant to   attend an investigation meeting on 7 October 2011. The claimant was shown   CCTV footage and admitted to consuming food without payment. The Tribunal   found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed but was satisfied that she   contributed by 2⁄3 to the fact of her dismissal. Dunnes appealed to Circuit   Court where Judge Linnane overturned the EAT decision and held that “there   were substantial grounds justifying the company’s ‘fair decision’ to dismiss   her along with seven other members of staff” and also that “[t]here was not   only a breach of company policy of which she was aware but there was a breach   of trust…”

The EAT has accepted that the test to be applied as to   whether the sanction was reasonable is as set out in the case of Noritake   (Ireland) Limited v Kenna (UD88/1983) in which the EAT considered the matter   in terms of three questions:

1. Did the company believe that the employee misconducted himself as alleged?
2. If so, did the company have reasonable grounds to sustain that belief? 
3. If so, was the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the alleged misconduct?

The Company believes that the answer to all of these   questions is yes

The Claimants   annual salary at date of dismissal was €23,850. It is noted that the claimant   has mitigated his loss by taking up new employment

Conclusion:

It is the   Company position that misappropriation of Company property is considered to   be an act of gross misconduct, the decision to dismiss was based on the   grounds of loss of trust and confidence in him as an employee. The Company is   satisfied that the conduct concerned justified dismissal and that this   therefore does not constitute an unfair dismissal for the purposes of the Act

Finally, and   without prejudice should the Company be found to have unfairly dismissed the   Claimant then the Adjudicator must also consider Section 7(2)(f) of the Unfair Dismissal Act (as   amended by Section 6(6) of the 1993 Act) and the extent to which the conduct   of the claimant contributed to the dismissal. In the circumstances of this case it should be found that the   Claimant contributed 100% to his own dismissal.

The events leading to the complainant’s dismissal began as   far back as 16^th December 2015, when he was issued with a formal   written warning by the respondent for unexcused absence and insubordination.   The complainant was unable to attend work in or around 14^th   December 2015 due to unforeseen circumstances where his car out of service   and he had to arrange for his children to be collected from school / crèche.   Despite the complainant explaining this to his manager he was issued with a   Written Warning. The Complainant felt that this was very strict and different   to the way other employees would be dealt with. It was now that the   Complainant believed that was suffering bullying at the hands of his manager   and reported this to one of the respondent company directors. The matter was   not investigated and no further action was taken by the company. It was   submitted by the Complainant’s representative that it was at this time that   the Complainant’s relationship with his manager became strained and he   believed that he was being treated less favourably by his manager compared to   other employees of the respondent company.

6^th April 2017.

Over the years, a practise had developed in the respondent   company whereby employees could purchase motor parts and products at a   reduced rate by advising the management that they wished to purchase the   product and then discharge the cost to the company. On this particular day,   the complainant took a product from the store shelf for personal use. As   there was no management present at that time he intended to pay for the   product the next day.

7^th April 2017.

The manager asked all staff present, including the   Complainant, whether any items had been taken off the shelves. The   Complainant said nothing however a few minutes later the complainant went to   the manager’s office and informed him that he had taken a product and now   wished to discharge the cost of the product (value in or around €40). The   manager advised the Complainant that he should have placed the item on the   ‘suspended account’. When the Complainant informed the manager that this was   not the normal practice he was informed that it would be the practice going   forward. The Complainant left the office and worked for the remainder of his   shift.

10^th April 2017.

The Complainant was informed that he was being suspended   with pay, during this meeting the Complainant was told to sign a letter which   allegedly purported to set out the facts of the incident. A letter dated 10^th   April 2017 was given to the complainant at this meeting, this letter states:

“It is alleged that   on Thursday 6^th April you stole a product without paying for   this”.

The letter goes onto say that “As per the disciplinary policy, please be advised that suspension   is no way a disciplinary sanction or a penalty against you and is implemented   in order for a full investigation into the above matters to take place”.

14^th April 2017.

The Complainant attended the meeting on 14^th   April, the meeting was chaired by a company director. At this meeting the   Complainant tried to explain what had happened on the evening of 6^th   April and how he had always intended to discharge the cost of the product. He   went onto explain what he considered was the practice in the store where   employees are permitted to purchase motor parts and products at a reduced   rate.

It was submitted   that the director acting on behalf of the respondent company had no intention   of investigating the matter whatsoever and had clearly made up his mind from   the outset that the complainant was to be removed from his position. It was submitted that in breach of fair   procedures and rights to natural justice, the director then informed the complainant   that he had a choice; dismissal or resignation with a reference. It was submitted that the respondent   company had prepared in advance of the disciplinary meeting two letters both   dated 14^th April 2017, one terminating the complainant’s contract   of employment and another in full and final settlement of his   employment. A copy of both letters was   provided to the complainant by the director and were produced at the hearing.

It was submitted that given the manifestly unfair options   provided to the complainant by the director, the complainant indicated   dismissal to which the director then proceeded to threaten him by saying that   he would interfere in any job he obtained within 100 miles of company and   that he would “f**k it up” for him.   The meeting was suspended so that the complainant could speak to his   wife on the telephone. The   complainant’s wife advised him to look for reference from the director. It was submitted that the complainant was   forced by the director on behalf of the company to sign a letter dated 14^th   April 2017 which purported to be in “full   and final settlement” of the matter.   The complainant was provided with one week’s notice and a   reference. The complainant was not   provided with the notes of the disciplinary meeting dated 14^th   April 2017 and further was not informed by the director of his right to   appeal the decision to dismiss to senior management in breach of a term of   the contract of employment.

Relevant   Legislation.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) – Section 6 (1)   (2) (4) (6) and Section 7 (1) and (2) were quoted.

Legal Submissions.

It was submitted that given the strained relationship that   the complainant had with his manager, that the company used the opportunity   to dismiss him without any investigation and right to fair procedures or   natural justice.

It was submitted that the investigation conducted by the   respondent was not conducted in accordance with fair procedures and natural   justice and further that it was in breach of procedures for investigation as   set out in the complainant’s contract of employment. Neither the manager or   the director provided minutes of their disciplinary meeting with the   complainant on 10^th April 2017 or 14^th April 2017.

It is submitted that prior to the disciplinary meeting held   on 14^th April 2017, he was not made aware by the respondent that   he could potentially be dismissed from his position. The complainant was not informed by the   respondent that he could be sacked as a result of the investigation.

It is submitted that the respondent failed to investigate   at all the complaint made by the complainant under the grievance procedure   against the manager.

It is submitted that the disciplinary hearing conducted by   the director was fundamentally flawed and failed to afford the complainant   with fair procedures and natural justice and further failed to the   complainant with a hearing as provided for in the complainant’s contract of   employment and in particular failed to investigate the matters in full.

It is submitted that the outcome of the purported investigation   and the disciplinary hearing conducted by the director were predetermined by the   respondent as management wanted to try and justify the dismissal of the   complainant. It is submitted that the   director acted as judge, jury and executioner in the complainant’s case. It   was respectfully submitted that the procedures, and the resulting decision to   dismiss the complainant, were wholly predetermined and designed to bring   about the complainant’s removal from the workplace.

The respondent’s treatment of the complainant, including   his immediate suspension on 10^th April 2017, demonstrate in the   clearest of terms the level of predetermination of the respondent and its   clear resolve and determination to bring about the complainant’s permanent   removal from the workplace

Without prejudice to the above position that the   complainant’s dismissal was automatically unfair by reason of the fact that   it resulted wholly or mainly from the complainant being vilified for engaging   in a work practise which all employees of the respondent took part in, it is   submitted that, even if that were not the case, the decision to dismiss the   complainant was wholly disproportionate, having regard to the complainant’s   employment record and the nature of the misconduct alleged.

It was submitted that the Adjudication Officer is not   prohibited from reaching a determination on the proportionality of the   respondent’s decision to the dismissal; as stated in the judgement of   McGovern J. in Doyle v Asilo Commercial   Limited [2008] IEHC 445, it is for the Adjudication Officer to determine “whether [the] investigation is reasonable   and whether the decision to dismiss in light of the results of that   investigation, is a reasonable response”. It was submitted in this case that   the so-called investigations lacked reasonableness in that they were embarked   upon by the respondent’s management for an ulterior motive; namely, to bring   about the complainant’s dismissal. It was further submitted that, even if   those investigations were bona fide   (which is denied), the decision to dismiss the complainant did not constitute   a reasonable response to the misconduct alleged.

The powers of the   Adjudication Officer, and Labour Court and High Court on appeal, to   scrutinise the proportionality and reasonableness of an employer’s decision   to suspend and ultimately dismiss is expressly recognised in the judgement of   Noonan J., in the case of Bank of   Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241. That case concerned an employee accused   of sending emails of an inappropriate and obscene nature, in contravention of   the employer’s IT policy. Like the complainant in this case, Mr. Reilly was   employed for approximately 8 years with a previously impeccable record. Mr.   Reilly, admitted to sending the emails in question, thereby contravening the   employer’s IT policy. Regarding the decision to immediately suspend Mr.   Reilly in that case, Noonan J. stated as follows:

The suspension of   an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious measure which   can cause irreparable damage to his or her reputation and standing. It is   potentially capable of constituting a significant blemish on the employee's   employment record with consequences for his or her future career. As noted by   Kearns J. (as he then was) in Morgan   v. Trinity College Dublin[2003] 3 I.R. 157 , there are two types of suspension, holding and punitive. However,   even a holding suspension can have consequences of the kind mentioned.   Inevitably, speculation will arise as to the reasons for the suspension on   the premise of there being no smoke without fire.

Thus, even a holding suspension   ought not be undertaken lightly and only after full consideration of the   necessity for it pending a full investigation of the conduct in question. It   will normally be justified if seen as necessary to prevent a repetition of   the conduct complained of, interference with evidence or perhaps to protect   persons at risk from such conduct. It may perhaps be necessary to protect the   employer's own business and reputation where the conduct in issue is known by   those doing business with the employer. In general, however, it ought to be   seen as a measure designed to facilitate the proper conduct of the   investigation and any consequent disciplinary process.

Regarding the proportionality of the employer’s decision   to dismiss in that case, Noonan J., stated as follows:

In assessing the reasonableness   of the employer's conduct in relation to the dismissal herein, it seems to me   that such an assessment must have regard to the surrounding circumstances,   including the impact of the conduct on the employer as against the impact of   the dismissal on the employee to determine the proportionality of the   employer's response.

There is no doubting the   inappropriateness of the emails and even Mr. Reilly appears to accept that   sending them constituted misconduct deserving of some sanction. It is   ultimately a matter of opinion as to whether some or all of the images were   pornographic, obscene and so forth but certainly the bank were entitled to   come to a view on this. Whether it is a view shared by the court or anyone   else is not material as the authorities suggest. The same considerations   apply to whether they ought to be regarded as offensive and certainly to   some, perhaps most, people that would undoubtedly be the case. However, the   fact remains that there is no evidence that anybody was actually offended by   any of these emails. Nobody complained. The bank did not call any recipient   to give his or her opinion on them. The bank say that they had the potential   to reflect unfavourably on it and perhaps even for it to be sued. That may   well be so but none of this actually happened over a fairly long period,   perhaps because those in receipt of the emails either wanted to receive them   or acquiesced in receiving them. Indeed, as the evidence makes clear, it was   by mere chance that Mr. Reilly's behavior was even detected. In short, there   is no evidence that the bank suffered any loss, damage or detriment   whatsoever as a result of the conduct complained of.

Having regard to all of the   foregoing, I am satisfied that the conduct of the bank in relation to Mr.   Reilly's dismissal and the events leading up to it could not by any objective   standard be described as reasonable.

It was submitted that there are some striking similarities   between the circumstances leading to dismissal in the Reilly case and that in the complainant’s own case. It was   submitted that, having regard to the nature of complainant’s alleged   misconduct in circumstances where he was being condemned for engaging in the   established practise of the company by all employees and his impeccable record   with the respondent for 9 years, the respondent’s decision to dismiss could   not by any objective standard be described as reasonable. Furthermore, the   respondent’s conduct in suspending the complainant, it is submitted, wholly   unreasonable, unnecessary and unjustified and the complainant relies on the   dicta of Noonan J. above, in that regard.

The complainant further relies on the decision of the   Employment Appeals Tribunal in Ruairi   Heuston v Gregg Martin Crash Repair Limited UD835/2012 in which the   claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed and awarded the sum of   €40,000 in circumstances where he admitted to an isolated incident of having   addressed a work colleague (his supervisor) in an inappropriate and verbally   abusive manner. In the case of Sadowska   v Players Leisure Limited t/a Players Leisure Limited UD1658/201, the   claimant was accused of breaching company policy in taking money from the   company float without permission, instead leaving a note for her employer. In   finding the dismissal in that case to be unfair, the Employment Appeals   Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction to scrutinise the proportionality of the   respondent’s decision to dismiss, stating as follows:

“In considering the   proportionality of the sanction the Tribunal noted that when she was   dismissed the claimant had worked for more than 7 years and that no   alternative sanction was considered.”

Conclusion.

By reason of the above, the complainant contends that the   decision to dismiss, as well as the several processes embarked upon by the   respondent to bring about that result, were fundamentally and irretrievably   flawed. Without prejudice to the complainant’s position in that regard, it is   contended that the decision to dismiss him was, in any event, completely   disproportionate, unreasonable and patently unfair having regard to the   nature of the alleged misconduct, the complainant’s record within the   respondent’s organisation and the respondent’s treatment of the complainant   in the weeks prior to and during those procedures.

The complainant therefore requests the Adjudication Office   to uphold his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977, as   amended.

Both parties submitted comprehensive written submissions   and these have been helpful in reaching a conclusion in this case.

There is agreement that the Complainant did remove one   item of product, JLM Extreme Clean, on the evening of 6^th April   2017.

By letter dated 10^th April 2017 the Complainant   is informed that he has been placed on paid suspension from the company to   accommodate a full and thorough investigation into the matter. The next   communication appears to be by telephone on 13^th April 2017, the   Respondent Manager rang the Complainant informing him that he had to attend a   disciplinary meeting the next day i.e. 14^th April at 1. 00pm.There   appears to have been no mention that the outcome of such a meeting could be a   disciplinary sanction up to and including dismissal.

At the meeting on 14^th April the Complainant   was given the option of having a colleague accompany him, the Complainant   declined this offer. At this meeting the Complainant attempted to explain   what had happened on the evening of 6^th April and how he intended   to discharge the cost of the product (pay for it). He also attempted to   explain the practice in the store where employees are permitted to purchase   motor parts and products at reduced rates. The Director chairing this meeting   informed the Complainant that he had viewed the CCTV footage.

I find it strange that the Complainant was not interviewed   as part of the investigative process and that the only opportunity he had to   explain things was at the disciplinary hearing on 14^th April 2017.

CCTV footage was viewed and would appear to be the only   consideration prior to a decision to dismiss the complainant.

An employer should not equate video footage, for example,   of an employee taking money from the till with an admission of dishonesty by   him such that it remains only for the employer to speak the words of   dismissal. In the event of video evidence, an impugned employee should be   suspended pending investigation in the normal way (Maguire v Funny Biz Ltd UD879/1992).

The investigation process and disciplinary procedure   should not have been part of the same meeting, it appears in this instant   case that they were. Representative for the Complainant alleges that the   Director acted as judge, jury and executioner in the Complainant’s case. To a   point, I find it hard to disagree.

The Complainant was an employee with almost nine years’   service, he was employed in a position of honesty and trust.

On the evening in question he removed a product from the   stores for his own personal use bypassing the normal procedures for employee   purchases, I’m quite sure he would have been aware of what the normal process   was. There is a question as to what process other employees followed when   purchasing products.

The following morning the Complainant had sufficient time   to utilise the correct procedure prior to all employees being approached by   the Manager. He did not utilise the correct procedure and he and only he will   ever know whether this was ever his intention. It appears to have “slipped   his mind”.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in Britain takes a   two-stage approach to dishonesty. First it must decide whether according to   the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was   dishonest. If so, then secondly, consideration must be given to whether the   person concerned must have realised that what he or she was doing was by   those standards dishonest. (John Lewis plc v Coyne [2001] IRLR 139)

In this case did the Complainant believe what he was doing   was dishonest or was it a case of what he was doing was what all other   employees were doing?

In this case I cannot decide totally in favour of either   of the parties.

The Respondent conducted an investigation that I believe   was flawed in as much as it denied the Complainant the opportunity to put his   version of events to management prior to the disciplinary meeting he was   invited to via a telephone call. He was not made aware of the possible consequences   / outcome of this meeting.

The Complainant removed product from the store bypassing   the normal procedures, at one stage it was stated that he was the only   employee on the premises at that time and therefore not in a position to   inform management of his intention to purchase. Could he not have waited   until the next day when a member of the Respondent’s management was present?   The next day he claims it slipped his mind to inform management and discharge   the cost of the product.

In this case I find in favour of the complainant however I   feel that he contributed to his own dismissal and was 50% at fault for his   own dismissal.

I note that the complainant commenced employment with   another company two weeks after his dismissal.

In accordance with Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977   I award the complainant payment for these two weeks i.e. €29,062.67 /52 =   €558.90 x 2 = €1,117.80

Plus

Loss of weekly earnings of €117.65 = €6,117.83 per annum.

€1,117.80 + €6,117.83 = €7,235.63 x 50% = €3,617.82

Total amount   awarded = €3,617.82

Payment of award to   be paid within 42 days from the date shown below.

Dismissal, Contributory Negligence