ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ 45853

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Butcher	A Butcher’s Shop

Dispute:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
S 13 Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00056728-003 and 004	04/03/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Date of Hearing:

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the disputes.

Summary of Workers Case:

The complainant began working with the respondent, a craft butcher, on March 1st, 2021.

On September 18th, 2021, he paid for a piece of meat and hung it in the main fridge of the shop for later collection. The value of the meat was €25, and he put €30 into the till and took €5.00 in change.

The meat was hanging on a display in a bag all day in the main fridge until 6 pm when it was time for him to go home.

He then took the bag of meat and put it into his black bag; something he had done on numerous occasions before. Other staff members had witnessed this.

As he was leaving, his manager was doing the cash and another manager was standing near the sink; he and a colleague finished work at 6 pm. He left the shop, saying good night and have a nice weekend as he was leaving.

When he got home, he received a text message at 6:25 from his manager asking him about the meat that had been hanging in the fridge and seeking to confirm whether the complainant had taken it.

He replied that he had and that it was his meat and confirming what the bag contained.

Then at 10 pm on that same evening he received a text from a second manager telling him that his employment was being terminated and that they had been his last day at work for the respondent.

He has only worked for the respondent for nine months and did the ‘cash up’ for them each day as he had his own set of keys to the shop. He cannot understand why after all this time they felt the need to terminate his employment.

He says he is a trustworthy reliable honest and truthful employee.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The respondent in evidence said that he had asked the complainant for proof of purchase as he had no record of the payment.

He had checked on the till system for a Visa payment and accepts that he sent a text between seven and 8 o’clock terminating the complainant’s appointment.

In response to a question from the adjudicator he said that he did not interview the complainant to get his version of events and there was no disciplinary hearing because in fact the complainant resigned his position.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The complainant said that he had availed of the option to purchase product from the shop on previous occasions and this is not an uncommon practice in butcher shops. The only issue that arose was whether the complainant had actually paid for the product.

They were initially five complaints in this case; three of which arise under employment statutes, (one of which was withdrawn) and two under the Industrial Relations Acts. One of these was a duplicate and was withdrawn in the course of the hearing.

The facts of the case are not essentially in dispute except the contention by the respondent that the complainant resigned. The complainant denies that he did, and I accept his version of what happened. His employment was terminated by the action of the respondent.

The respondent had every right to enquire into the circumstances of the complainant’s purchase; indeed, he had an obligation to do so.

In the context of a small business such as a butcher’s shop this does not require a major investigation; it merely requires an employer or somebody acting on his behalf to take simple steps to establish the basic facts of what happened before taking any disciplinary action, much less terminating a person’s employment.

The complainant said that he had availed of the option to make purchases from the shop on previous occasion. The question was whether the complainant has actually paid for the product on this occasion.

In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent failed to carry out any process of enquiry so as to allow the complainant to explain precisely what it happened and get to the truth of the matter. The suggestion that the complainant resigned is not credible.

It was a peremptory termination without any fair process, or indeed any process of any nature.

In so acting, the respondent breached the very essence of natural justice and this renders the dismissal unfair

Recommendation:

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

I uphold the complaint CA-00056728-003 and recommend the complainant be paid €5,000.00 for the unfair termination of his employment. (Complaint CA-00056728-004 was withdrawn at the hearing).

Dated: 10th August 2023