Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Retail Worker

A Retail Chain

Representatives

Michael Meegan of Mandate Trade Union

Anne-Marie Burke of IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00020410-001

09/07/2018

The issues in contention concern a Retail Worker and a large Supermarket chain in regard to a Final Written Warning issued to the Complainant regarding an alleged misuse of a Staff Privilege Discount card.

It was pleaded that the level of Warning was excessive in regard to the incident involved.

The Complainant has over 22 years unblemished service. On the 15th March 2018 she went to her own Store / usual place of Employment and used a number of Competitor Store Discount Vouchers (which her employer accepts) and in addition also used her own Privileged Staff Discount Card in a number of transactions.

This came to light and was investigated by Management. A disciplinary meeting on the 3rd of May was arranged. On the 15th May she was issued with a Final Written Warning. This was Appealed and following an Appeal Hearing on the 1st June the final Written Warning was upheld.

It was accepted by the Complainant that the basic facts of the case were not in dispute. She had inadvertently made a legitimate mistake in using her Privilege Card on the 15th March. The Checkout Operator she had initially dealt with was inexperienced and the second time the entire transaction was overshadowed by a lively banter /gossip session she was having with a number of Operators who were her daily colleagues even though on the 15th she was herself on a day off.

The mistake was genuinely made and after 22-year unblemished service record a Final Written Warning was an extremely excessive penalty to impose.

Extensive Written and oral evidence was given by the Respondent Managers. The Staff Privilege Card scheme is a major benefit to all staff and has to be operated fairly and reasonably by all parties.

The prohibition and the reasoning behind it, on using the Staff Privilege Card in conjunction with other Competitor Store Discount Vouchers (effectively getting a Double Discount) was well known to all staff. It had been clearly communicated to all staff, including the Complainant.

The question of the Penalty imposed had been carefully considered both at the Initial Disciplinary Hearing and the Appeal Stage. Both relevant Mangers gave Oral Evidence.

The Appeal Decision Manager gave evidence that the Privilege Cards scheme was a very valued Benefit to staff. If mal practices or misuse were allowed to develop it would be a very serious matter which would effectively undermine the basic basis of trust between the Store and its staff. Over 12,000 staff are employed, and the scheme must be operated vigilantly.

The Penalty of a Final Written Warning was a quite lenient Sanction and the Card itself was not withdrawn. A Withdrawal would have been a quite severe financial penalty.

Having heard all the Oral and considered the Written submissions I came to the following conclusions.

The Privilege Card Discount scheme is a valuable benefit and has to be seen as such by all involved.

The Checkout incidents on the 15th March 2018 were open to a number of interpretations. The Complainant was a very experienced Staff member of 22 years plus service. Her claimed inadvertent mistake was hard to understand. The issue of the Competitor Vouchers and the Staff Privilege cards was a very well communicated policy.

On the Respondent side the Company has a very well developed and agreed 5 stage Disciplinary Procedure. A final Written Warning was Stage 4, one step before Stage 5 and Dismissal.

The clear public defence of the Privilege Card scheme was an accepted and, in my view, well warranted policy. The obvious challenged posed by the acceptance of Competitor Coupons had been addressed but there was possibly still some confusion at checkout operator level.

The Complainant was clearly remorseful and upset by the incident itself and her 22 years’ service had to be in her favour.

It was important to note that the Appeal Manager could have withdrawn or suspended the Privilege card but did not do so. This avoided imposing a financial penalty on the Complainant and this factor was strongly, I felt, in the Respondent’ favour. The Manager was aware of the long service of the Complainant.

All Mangers need to be aware of creating what one could call “Disciplinary Inflation” by imposing penalties too soon at too high a level of severity. Scope or “Head Room” has to be left for Penalties when a serious incident occurs but which does not warrant Dismissal.

In this case the Complainant was very upset and remorseful . The defence of the Privilege card system while very important has to be taken in context.

Accordingly, I recommend that the Stage 4 Final Written Warning be set aside but replaced, in view of the serious nature of the incident, by a 6-month Stage 2 First Written Warning. The Warning to be dated from the 15th March 2018, the date of the Incident.

A renewed effort be made to communicate to all staff the Rules governing the use of the Staff Privilege Card where Competitor Discount vouchers are also involved.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Recommendation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00020410-001

Warning to be reduced from a Stage 4 Final Written Warning to a stage 2 1st Written Warning.

Renewed Staff Communication to be undertaken regarding Competitor Coupons and the Staff Privilege Card.