LCR22863

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00034346 (CA-00045324)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 28 August 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. 

On 26 July 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: 

“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." 

A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 November 2023.

DECISION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim by a shop worker that she was unfairly treated when a discrepancy arose in the shop till at her former workplace.

In May 2021 the shop owner’s husband approached the worker and a colleague to enquire if they knew anything about money that was missing from the till. The worker asked that an investigation be carried out and that cameras be installed in the shop. She was told not to discuss the matter with the shop owner, who was ill at that time. The owner did not speak to the worker about the matter when she returned to the shop. There was no evidence that anything was done to resolve the issue.

The worker resigned her employment 10 days later. She said that she was unhappy about the fact that the owner’s husband, who was not her manager, had engaged with her about the matter. In her view, the situation could have been approached in a more transparent and sensitive manner. The worker felt pushed out due to a lack of communication. She felt that she was the one accused of taking money, and this impacted her mental well-being.

The Employer’s position is that a discrepancy arose in the till during the last week of April and the owner needed to get the bottom of the issue. She asked her husband to talk to the staff about the matter, as she was ill at the time. The till was out on three more occasions that week, after which the worker resigned her position. The worker was a good employee. She was never accused of taking anything. The Employer acknowledged that the worker asked for investigations to be carried out daily. The employer was very taken aback by the worker’s reaction to the owner’s husband discussing the matter with her.

The working environment at the centre of this dispute is a small local shop with few staff. It is evident that there were shortcomings in how this matter was handled by both parties, with poor communications and a deterioration in working relations exacerbating the situation.

The Court notes that the worker was never accused of taking money from the till. The owner had a responsibility to investigate and address workplace issues that arose but failed to engage in any meaningful way with the worker about those issues. As a result, the worker was left in limbo, and rightly or wrongly felt accused. However, in the view of the Court, the worker left her employment prematurely without making any effort to articulate her grievance or concerns.

In the view of the Court, the dispute before it could have been avoided with better communications between the owner and the worker. The role of Court in referrals such as these is to assist the parties wherever possible in resolving workplace issues.  The Court notes that the worker in this case has now left the employment.  Having regard to all the circumstances, the Court does not view an award of compensation as appropriate in this case. The Court recommends that the dispute should be now regarded as closed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
18 December 2023	Deputy Chairman