Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Cash Processor

A Cash in Transit Company

Representatives

Self-represented

 Anne O'Connell, Solicitor

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00052864-001

18/09/2022

The employer is a provider of cash-in-transit services and the employee commenced employment with them as a cashier in November 2021.  When he was dismissed on May 10th 2022, he was in the role of “banker.”  At the hearing, the employer’s witnesses explained the difference in the two roles.  The job of the cashier is to open the bags of cash collected from banks, supermarkets and other retailers.  The cashier counts the cash and checks that the amount of money in the bag is the amount indicated on the docket in the bag.  The job of the banker is to sort the cash into bundles of 100 notes of each denomination and to separate “unfit” or used notes from “fit” or good notes.  All the notes are then aggregated into “bricks” of five bundles.  Good notes are separated from unfit notes in separate trays.  Good notes are sent back to clients for use and unfit notes are sent to the Central Bank to be taken out of circulation.

The employee was dismissed following an investigation into the theft of €2,000 in a bundle of 100 €20 “unfit” notes on the night of April 15th – 16th 2022.   He claims that his dismissal was unfair.  Because he was employed by the company for less than one year, he is seeking a recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 to the effect that his dismissal was unfair.

In advance of the hearing of this dispute, the employee submitted a detailed outline of the events that led to his dismissal.  At the hearing, he provided the background to his claim that he has been treated unfairly.

The employee was a banker on the night shift.  He worked four 10-hour shifts every week, starting at 7.00pm.  He started work on the evening of Friday, April 15th and he finished up at 7.00am the next morning.  At the hearing, he said that the team leader and manager on duty confirmed that his cash was balanced when he finished his shift.

When he arrived at work on Monday morning at 7.00am, the employee said that he heard the managers talking about cash missing from the weekend balance.  He was off work the next day and he took two days off on Wednesday and Thursday because his partner was in hospital.  On Thursday, he said that he got a text message from his manager asking him if he would be back at work the next day.  When he arrived at work at 7.00pm on Friday, April 22nd, he was approached by the security manager who told him that €2,000 was missing from the weekend balance.  The security manager also told him that he had had contacted his previous employer.  He was suspended with pay, pending an investigation into the missing money.

On Tuesday, May 3rd, the employee attended an investigation meeting with the security manager and a note-taker for the employer. He was accompanied by a colleague.  He had an opportunity to look at the CCTV footage of him working on the shift of April 15th – 16th.  He can be seen on the footage dropping 29 bundles of unfit notes into a container under his desk.  At the hearing, he said that he was never informed that he wasn’t permitted to put a container on the floor.  At 2.01, he can be seen dropping his asthma inhaler on the floor under his desk.  He retrieved the inhaler two minutes later.  He explained that he did not retrieve it immediately because he was in the middle of counting cash.  When he was asked why it took more than 10 seconds to pick up his inhaler from under the desk, he said that it had bounced to the back wall and, being overweight and with a sore knee, it took him a few seconds to pick it up and stand up again.  At the hearing, he said that the bulge seen in the pocket on the leg of his trousers is his inhaler and his wallet.  He said that there were no available lockers on the premises in which to place his wallet because they were all taken by drivers.

At the investigation meeting on May 3rd, the employee was asked to explain why 28 bundles of unfit €20 notes were in the container instead of 29 bundles.  The employee said that over the weekend, the money from the shifts on Friday and Saturday are placed in the vault.  Then the money from Friday’s shift is removed from the vault in case cash is needed for clients.  He suggested that the missing €2,000 could be missing from Saturday’s shift when he was not at work.

Concluding his submission, the employee said that he was informed before he finished his shift on the morning of April 16th that his cash was balanced.  He said that it could not have balanced if he had taken the money.

On behalf of the employer, Ms O’Connell explained the employee’s responsibilities as a banker.  His job was to carry out the “bulk balance” of cash on his shift.  Notes are counted on a high-speed processor which identifies good notes and unfit notes.  Good notes are separated from unfit notes and all notes are then bundled into 100 notes of each denomination, and then into “bricks” of five bundles.  At the end of the shift, the banker is required to balance their cash and if there is a discrepancy, they carry out a double check.  If the discrepancy cannot be resolved, the team leader is called to verify the discrepancy.  The employee balanced his cash at the end of his shift on the morning of Saturday, April 16th.

Ms O’Connell explained that there is a two-stage balancing exercise carried out on cash, and, following the “bulk balance” which is done by the banker, another team carries out a fine balance.  On the morning of Monday, April 18th, the staff doing the “fine balancing” discovered that €2,000 was missing from the shift of Friday – Saturday, April 15th – 16th. 

At the hearing, the security manager said that it is very unusual for this amount of cash to go missing.  He said that, occasionally, a note or two might go missing, but €2,000 was out of the ordinary.  The security manager said that he looked at the CCTV footage of the Friday – Saturday shift and he saw the employee throwing bundles of cash into a container under his desk.  The container was not visible on the camera.  He said that the employee can be seen throwing 29 bundles under his desk.  At 2.01, he can also be seen throwing something from his pocket onto the floor and three minutes later, he went under the desk and retrieved something.  The employer concluded that the employee picked up a bundle of 100 €20 notes and put them in his pocket when he went under the table.  The employee was wearing trousers with a zipped pocket just above the knee.  The CCTV footage shows that his pocket is bulky.  Until the investigation meeting on May 3rd, the security manager did not know that the object thrown under the desk was an inhaler.  At 2.04, the employee left the room where he worked, returning at 2.07 to continue his shift.

At the hearing, I asked the security manager what conclusion he came to about what happened to the missing €2,000.  He said that he thinks that the employee was not aware that, after the bulk balance at the end of each shift, all the money taken in is then “fine balanced,” including the unfit notes.

The HR manager who made the decision to dismiss the employee said that she watched many hours of the CCTV footage of the shift of April 15th – 16th and she counted the number of bundles of good notes and unfit notes.  She said that she observed the employee throwing 29 bundles of unfit notes under the table.  She also observed him throwing an inhaler under the table, and she found it strange that he didn’t retrieve it immediately.  When he went under the table to get the inhaler, he was there for around 12 seconds and when he emerged a weight is visible in his pocket.  Before he went under the table, the zip of his pocket was open, and when he emerged, the zip was closed.  The CCTV footage shows 25 bundles of unfit notes in a crate, tied in bundles of five.  It also shows three bundles of unfit notes on the employee’s desk.  The HR manager said that there should have been four bundles on the desk.  The HR manager said that, on the balance of probabilities, she reached the conclusion that, when the employee went under the desk, appearing to be retrieving his inhaler, he put a bundle of notes in his pocket.

A document was produced at the hearing from an employee who was a banker on the day shift.  This employee arrived in work on Monday, April 18th and, when he was balancing the cash, he discovered that €2,000 in €20 notes was missing from the unfit notes.  He checked the notes again with a co-worker and, when they couldn’t find the missing €2,000, they reported the issue to their team leader.

The HR manager said that the CCTV shows that, contrary to what the employee said, he counted notes manually as well as using the counting machine.  She said that he did not put all the unfit notes through the machine and she said that she thinks that he altered some bundles.  As a result, he was “bulk balanced” at the end of his shift.

On behalf of the employer, Ms O’Connell said that the vault was not opened at the weekend and the money from the April 15th -16th shift was not interfered with.  She noted that, having retrieved his inhaler from the floor, the employee did not use it.  She said that the employee made no mention of a sore knee at the disciplinary investigation meeting, the disciplinary hearing or the appeal hearing.  She said that the employer’s policy is that employees are not allowed to be in possession of a wallet when they are working and that, contrary to what the employee said about lockers, lockers were available for him to use.

I have heard the employee’s grievance, I have read the very detailed submission he sent to the WRC on September 18th 2022 and I have given serious consideration to his claim that, by dismissing him, he was treated unfairly by his former employer.  I have also reviewed the actions of the employer in the way in which they investigated the theft of €2,000 on the evening of April 15th – 16th 2022.

In reaching my conclusions on this dispute, I am guided by the decision of the former Employment Appeals Tribunal referred to by Ms O’Connell in Patrick O’Malley v An Post[1].  Mr O’Malley was dismissed as a result of shortages at the counter in the post office where he worked.  The Tribunal concluded that Mr O’Malley did not offer a satisfactory explanation for the two incidents identified by his employer and that the issues “went to the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent.”  The Tribunal found that the appropriate sanction was dismissal.

It is my view that the only reasonable conclusion that the employer could have reached is that the employee took the money.  I am satisfied that the investigation that was carried out into his conduct was fair and in accordance with the standard for disciplinary investigations set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures in Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000.  I find therefore, that his dismissal was not unfair.

As the employer has reported the theft on the night of April 15th – 16th 2022 to the Gardaí, I recommend that the issue is now left to the Gardaí to investigate.

Theft