Case Number: ADJ-00000042. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00000042
Date08 March 2016
PartiesAn Employee -v- An Employer

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).


The claimant commenced employment on 1 November 2003 as a deli assistant in a Fuel and Convenience Filing Station with the respondent until his employment was terminated on 10 June 2015 by reason of gross misconduct. The decision to terminate was appealed internally by the claimant but was upheld.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The claimant commenced employment on 1 November 2003 as a deli assistant with the respondent. On 27th April 2015 he was requested to attend a meeting and was shown CCTV footage. During this meeting the claimant was questioned around the filling of his car with fuel and consuming food. The claimant admitted to breaches in procedure namely that he had served himself fuel and that he had eaten wasted stock. He claimed that he did not pay for the fuel at that time but that he paid for it later on as his till balanced and he apologised. He was suspended with pay pending an investigation.

Subsequent meetings took place during which time the claimant was given an opportunity to review further CCTV and at the oral hearing his representative confirmed that the content of the CCTV was not in dispute albeit they did dispute the ‘over-reliance’ by the respondent of the CCTV. An initial 10 allegations of breaches in procedure was subsequently reduced to 3 namely in relation to 3 incidents on the night of 24/25th April where it was alleged that the claimant breached procedure in relation to Staff Meal and Beverage Policy , Cash Handling Policy and the Honesty and Integrity Policy. On 10th June the claimant was advised that that he was dismissed and appealed his dismissal. This appeal meeting took place on 23rd June and the decision to dismiss was upheld.

The claimant alleges that the process was flawed in that allegations relating to incidents investigated earlier on were later ignored with no explanation given for. Furthermore, it was stated that allegations relating to one particular shift become the focus of attention and was the reason for dismissal.

The claimant accepted that he had been trained up in the company’s procedure but argued that such training did not occur regularly and that if the claimant had been advised that he was breaching procedure, he would have desisted from the practice. The claimant accepted that it was not custom and practice to breach these procedures.

The claimant argued that the decision to dismiss was made without a full and fair investigation and the sanction of dismissal was both inappropriate and disproportionate. The claimant also argued that he was dismissed summarily, unfairly, and did not receive minimum notice nor...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT