Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA- 00045324

22/07/2021

The Worker left her employment due to an issue she had with how the respondent handled a potential misappropriation of money.

The worker commenced working in the Respondent’s shop in July 2019. She got on well with everyone and enjoyed her job.  In May 2021 the shop owner’s husband came into the shop and asked the worker and one other employee if they knew anything about money that had gone missing from the till. Money had gone missing the week before too, but nobody had said anything about that to the worker. The worker knew nothing about it but felt like she was the one being accused of taking the money.

The worker worked on the morning shift with one other girl. The owner worked the afternoon shift with one other employee. The worker suggested that they should install cameras and/or go to the Gardai. The atmosphere began to change then, and it became a horrible place to work with the cloud of doubt hanging over her.  The owner wouldn’t even look at her when she arrived in the mornings.

The money continued to disappear. The worker told the Respondent that if it happened again she was going to leave. She did get advice that if she were to leave, it wouldn’t look good, but she couldn’t cope with the doubt that was hanging over her. She became very anxious and was prescribed medication to help with that.  She decided that her health was more important, and she resigned her position. She secured new employment twelve weeks later.

The shop owner was having treatment for cancer around the time the discrepancy appeared in the tills. The shop owner’s husband ( Mr. X)  went into the shop to talk to the staff about the discrepancy. He wasn’t accusing anyone of anything, he just wanted to get to the bottom of it because v.a.t. had to be paid on the items sold. The tills were out approximately € 500.00.

Mr. X analysed the tills from the morning shift and the late shift and narrowed down the issue to the morning shift. He spoke to the morning staff about it and organised for the float to be checked both before and after the shift. The problem kept occurring. Then the worker came in and said she was handing in her notice due to the stress the issue was having on her health.

The shop unit is up for sale at the moment. The Respondent has not expressed an interest in buying it due to her serious health issues at the moment. It is expected that the business will close altogether in the near future.

Having consider the evidence of both parties, I find that there were shortcomings on both sides. The worker could have given the Respondent more time to resolve the issue and could have voiced her feelings better about how the matter was being handled. The Respondent could have approached the matter in a more tactful way given the sensitivities around the issue of missing money.

I note the shop unit is up for sale at the moment and that the business will ceased to exist in the near future. I also note that the worker has found new employment.

In all the circumstances I am recommending the following:

1.       The Respondent should write a letter of apology to the worker setting out that she was not being accused of misappropriating the money from the till.

2.       The Respondent is to pay to the work the sum of €200 as compensation for the distress caused.

I am recommending the following:

1.       The Respondent should write a letter of apology to the worker setting out that she was not being accused of misappropriating the money from the till.

2.       The Respondent is to pay to the work the sum of €200 as compensation for the distress caused.