ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021869

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Retail Worker	A RETAIL cHAIN

Representatives

Self-Represented

Did not attend.

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00028705-001	28/05/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/09/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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).

Background:

The issues in contention concern the alleged Unfair Dismissal of a Retail Worker by a Retail Chain.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant commenced employment on the 21st of October 2018. All went well until a meeting in late April 2019 with her Manager, Mr. Xa. At this meeting she was informed that she was being dismissed for alleged breaches of Company policy regarding Credit Cards being accepted for payment, by her, when the Credit Card was not actually physically present. It was implied that she had completed a “criminal act” and this allegation was most distressing to her

The Complainant strongly contested this and pointed out that she was a Probationer and that an Assistant Manager (Ms. Xb) had actually completed the sale. An Appeal hearing was held on the 8th May where it was accepted that Ms. Xb had conducted the Sale in question. The Manager, Mr. Xa now proceed to tell the Complainant that she was being dismissed for breaches of Company procedures and being a party to an illegal transaction. The Complainant asked the whereabouts of Ms Xb but was told she was “being investigated”. Her evidence was described as “Irrelevant” to proceedings. The Complainant stated that she had never received any training in how to deal with a non-physically present credit card and the entire matter was handled by Ms.Xb. She could not question Ms.X as she was not being made available. CCTV footage of the incident was described as also irrelevant. The Complainant, after a short break, left the meeting and informed the Respondent that she was now going to the WRC. She felt that she had been denied all-Natural Justice in a most unfair set of proceedings.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I was satisfied that proper notice had been served.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

The Complaint is under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 as the Complainant does not have the necessary 12 months service for a Claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977. None the less the provisions of SI 146 of 2000 -Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures applies. Many Legal Precedents regarding Natural Justice apply in this case.

All the evidence of the Complainant, both copy e mails and an Oral presentation were credible. There were no rebuttal arguments from the Respondent.

I felt that the Dismissal was procedurally unfair due to a very flawed Investigation and Disciplinary / Appeal procedure. The lack of any opportunity to question Ms. Xb was a major short fall. The assumptions made by Mr. Xa regarding the culpability of the Complainant when she was present at a transaction being conducted by a Manager seemed to lack a good evidential fairness. Manager Mr.Xa appeared to have changed his allegations from the initial stage to the Appeal stage.

Accordingly, having reviewed all the evidence presented I came to the view that the complaint for Unfair Dismissal was Well Founded.

As Redress I recommend, as “just and equitable” a Lump Sum of €5,000 be paid to the Complainant in regard to the Unfair Dismissal and the accompanying upset and trauma undergone by the Complainant particularly as regards the allegations of a “Criminal Act”.

4: Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Recommendation. Please refer to Section Three above for detailed reasoning.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00028705-001	Complaint is well founded. Redress of €5,000 is Recommended.

Dated: 28th November 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words: