Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Vending Machine Merchandiser

A Cash & Carry

Representatives

none 

HR Ireland

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-00035347-001

19/03/2020

The complainant says the respondent had insufficient evidence to accuse him of financial irregularities which led to his dismissed. The respondent says they carried out a disciplinary process in accordance with their procedures and the dismissal was fair.

The respondent submits they had two vending machine merchandisers. The overall figures for the end of 2019 showed a deficit of over €7,000 and at the end of May the figures showed a credit of over €4,500. Due to the large swings, which were symptomatic of an underlying issue, the respondent asked both merchandisers to increase the level of cycle counts. In June the complainant was on leave and was covered by the Vending Manager and he found serious issues; identifying serious shortages and irreconcilable differences from the complainant’s submitted data, showing an overall financial shortfall. The owner met the complainant at the end of June and gave him direct and clear instructions to ensure that counts were carried out properly and accurately. At the end of July, the Vending Manager noted the complainant had only carried out 5 of an expected 65 or more counts. He gave no reason for this and had constant excuses for not doing the counts.

The Vending Manager covered while the complainant was on 2 weeks leave in August and this showed up a very big accumulated shortfall, while the other merchandiser’s position remained consistent. At the end of August both merchandisers were told there would be an increased scrutiny on their functions and the Vending Manager carried out daily stock checks and counts after both had carried out their counts. This exonerated the other merchandiser who was seen to be operating with the same consistency.

By 24 September 2019 the shortfall had grown to over €38,000 and the figures were checked by the Accountant. The respondent also checked and double checked the reconciliations, which showed a revenue gap in the complainant’s machines. The complainant was suspended on 30 September, following meeting with the owner on 27 September 2019. An external HR consultant was appointed by the respondent to investigate whether there was a case to answer. His conclusion was that the complainant did have a case to answer and the matter needed to be progressed to the respondent’s formal disciplinary procedure.

On 9 October the complainant was invited to a disciplinary hearing which took place on 16 October 2019 and was chaired by another independent external HR consultant. The complainant offered no explanation as to how these verifiable losses attributable to him had occurred. He confirmed he had no cash or stock belonging to the respondent. There was also discussion about the non-lodgement of €350. The complainant contested the figure but did not explain why the money had not been lodged. The complainant was asked a number of questions, to which he said he didn’t know the answer or shrugged. The chair concluded the large deficit was proven by the respondent and the complainant gave no defence and offered no explanation for the deficit. It was recommended that he be dismissed. The owner accepted this and informed the complainant of his dismissal on 22 October 2019.

An appeal hearing took place on 13 January 2020 and the appeal was turned down and the dismissal stood. The complainant was informed on 24 February 2020.

In these circumstances the respondent submits the dismissal was fair.

The complainant submits he was dismissed after working for the respondent for over 16 years. He was very surprised when he found out the respondent was investigating financial anomalies. He strenuously denies being the source of any such discrepancies. He was later told a formal investigation was taking place, but he says he was not given the terms of reference. He cannot see how the investigation decided he was the only possible source of the problems. At the disciplinary meeting he was given print outs of ‘counts’ and asked to explain the abnormalities but he could not offer any definite explanation He has serious concerns about the appeal because of the length of time it went on, far longer than is set out in the staff handbook.

He says that throughout his time with the respondent the balances never tallied. He believes the respondent did not give enough consideration to there being another explanation and his dismissal was unfair.

The issue for decision by me is whether or not the complainant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 states: “Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

In this case there were two vending machine merchandisers and overall losses shown up in their work. The respondent looked for reasons for the losses and provided evidence of differences between the sales and revenue in the vending machines for which the complainant was responsible. The complainant went to a number of outlets, restocked the machines and collected the money from the machines. For security reasons he did not count and record the money. Nor did he record the sales since his last visit. He was unaware of sales and receipts. These figures were recorded in the office and showed up the deficits. When this became clear the complainant was asked to do more ‘counts’ but he did not do so. Neither did he start to count the money when he had an opportunity. During the investigation and disciplinary process, the complainant did not try to explain the deficits. The only explanations he offered were that it must be someone else or the machines were not recording properly. However, when the Vending Manager covered for the complainant’s leave there were no such deficits showing up.

The owner gave evidence that to be sure what was happening and because of the complainant’s long service and other close family connections with the respondent, he wanted the figures looked at very closely, involving the Vending Manager and Accountant, before deciding to start an investigation and this led to the disciplinary process being invoked which ended in the complainant being dismissed. The terms of reference for the investigation were in the letter to him dated 30 September 2019 informing him of the investigation. Also, there was a delay in issuing the outcome of the appeal, but the respondent gave a reasonable explanation for this.

I conclude the respondent found a deficit between revenue and sales for the vending machines which the complainant had responsibility for. The respondent then initiated a process which led to the complainant’s dismissal. I can find no flaws in that process which would undermine its outcome. I therefore find there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

For the reasons given above I conclude that complainant was fairly dismissed by the respondent and, pursuant to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, I find this complaint is not well-founded.

Fair dismissal