Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A store manager

A clothes retailer

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00015426-001

29/10/2017

The complainant worked as a store manager for the respondent clothing retail chain between the 5th September 2016 and the 12th September 2017. He was paid €457 per week. He asserts that his dismissal was unfair, a claim which the respondent, referring to performance issues, denies.

The respondent outlined that the complainant was a branch manager and was in its employment between the 5th September 2016 to the 12th September 2017. There were several issues with the complainant. One related to a customer complaint arising from a tuxedo hire and fitting. The customer stated that the suit and shirt did not fit, and the trousers were stained and torn at the bottom. The customer submitted photographs of the trousers. The complainant emailed the customer back to say that the complaint would be referred to the General Manager, as per policy. The complainant then texted the customer to say that they would not be accepting the complaint, without referring it to the General Manager. The customer came back to the respondent through the website, so the respondent found out that the complainant was handling his own complaints. The respondent refunded the customer and apologised for the bad experience.

The second complaint arose from a customer who was wrongly measured for his wedding suit. Three of the suits had to be changed and the customer asked to be transferred to a different branch. In respect of the third complaint, the respondent both sold and hired out suits. The complainant had hung rental suits in the retail area, so was seeking to sell second hand suits as new suits. There were new suits in storage, but the complainant did not have them out for sale.

Based on the three incidents, the respondent suspended the complainant on the 9th September 2017 pending investigation. The respondent appointed an investigator who provided his report to the complainant. The disciplinary meeting took place on the 12th September 2017. The Managing Director made the decision to dismiss there and then. The respondent does not have a disciplinary policy and no appeal was offered. The branch manager said that he attended the meeting with the complainant as an impartial note taker. He emailed the notes to the complainant and it is an error if he did not receive them.

In reply to the complainant, the respondent outlined that the complainant had not mentioned at the disciplinary meeting that he was being set up. He now says that the customer had been his friend. There were other complaints made online in February and May and they were not part of the disciplinary process.

The complainant outlined that the main points in the disciplinary meeting were the first complaint while the others were thrown in as fodder. He had known the first customer for many years from school and a part-time job. They had a falling out in 2003 and the customer has a vendetta against the complainant.

In September 2017, the complainant was running a named branch of the respondent. On the 9th September 2017, the Managing Director handed him a letter of suspension. At the disciplinary meeting, the complainant read out his letter, but the respondent did not have regard to his points. The meeting was a formality and they had made up their mind. He could not get representation. He explained his relationship with the first customer. This was the first allegation against the complainant regarding the quality of the product. There were no issues with the suit when leaving the store.

The complainant texted the first customer, who forwarded the message to the respondent. He did not know how serious sending the text to the customer was and apologised for doing so. He did not receive a contract from the respondent or did not receive a disciplinary procedure. He never received a pay slip. He never received a job description or training. He could not take adequate lunch breaks and did not receive accrued annual leave or commission.

The complainant said that he never received the minutes of the disciplinary meeting and was not offered an appeal. He did not get the P45 for four weeks, leading to delay in being paid social welfare. The complainant started a new job on the 17th October 2017. He was offered the job at the start of October.

The first customer had been looking to call him out. In respect of the wedding party, he said that he never treated the customer as an inconvenience. They were all individually measured but the initial fits were incorrect. There was no issue when he took the measurements. It is his word against theirs. The complainant held up his hands regarding the rental suits being in the retail area and this should not have happened.

Pursuant to section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, a dismissal is deemed to be unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. The complainant was suspended on the 9th September 2017 and dismissed at the end of the disciplinary meeting on the 12th September 2017. The Code of Practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures (SI 146/2000) requires the fair treatment of a disciplinary issue, including taking account of the employee’s submissions.

There were undoubtedly performance issues in this case. There were also significant procedural failings on the respondent’s part in handling the disciplinary issue. The complainant first knew of the disciplinary issue on the 9th September and was dismissed on the 12th September. The complainant read his detailed letter to the disciplinary meeting, but the respondent dismissed him at the end of the meeting. This cannot be fair consideration of the gravity of any disciplinary issue and the appropriateness of the sanction. I note the absence of any written disciplinary procedure. Taking these findings together, I find that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded.

In assessing redress, I note that the complainant started a new role on the 17th October 2017. I award the complainant redress of €1,800.

CA-00015426-001

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and I award redress of €1,800.

Unfair Dismissals Act / section 6(1)

Code of Practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures (SI 146/2000)