Case Number: ADJ-00007474. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00007474
• Hearing Date: 01 August 2017
• Date: 20 March 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Complainant v respondent

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007474

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A General Operative	A Large Warehouse Outlet

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00010129-001	08/03/2017

Representatives Paul McNulty, Brooks & Company Solicitors Ms Lorna Lynch , B.L Instructed by Vincent & Beatty Solicitors .

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 1/08/2017 and 13/10/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant is a Slovakian national who has been directly employed as a warehouse Selector with the Respondent since August 1, 2013 until his dismissal on 22 February, 2017. He worked a 30-hour week and received an annual salary of €32,306.79. The Complainant had not sourced work since his Dismissal and sought the remedy of compensation.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. They contended that he summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for his unauthorised removal and consumption of company property. The decision followed a comprehensive and fair disciplinary procedure. The Respondent is a Food retail store and operates over 129 stores and has over 3,000 employees. The Respondent submitted details of 1 The Contract of Employment 2 Grievance and Disciplinary procedures 3 Employee Handbook, incorporating the right of appeal from any disciplinary sanction. The Respondent submitted an outline of the sequence of events which culminated in the dismissal at the centre of the hearing. the Respondent outlined that the Company had a” zero tolerance of theft”. Several tubs of “Celebration sweets “had been placed out of use in a Black Crate in the Company Warehouse. On Sunday ,4 December, 2016, over the course of his night shift, the complainant took sweets out of a crate on three occasions and ate them. The Respondent discovered this event on a CC TV Footage sometime after the event and during an investigation into separate events which culminated in other Disciplinary matters. The crate served as a repository for the redistribution of damaged stock for charity, reprocessing or disposal purposes. On January 11, 2017, the Complainants Section Leader met with him and informed him that he was being suspended with immediate effect to allow for an investigation into the allegation that he had taken sweets at work. He was informed that the investigation may lead to disciplinary action. The Complainant was provided with copies of the CC TV footage, Contract, Statement of the Section Leader and invited to attend a disciplinary hearing on 25 January, 2017 where he was entitled to be accompanied by a friend or colleague. This meeting was rescheduled to February 6,2017 at the complainant’s request. The meeting was recorded in transcript. The Respondent conducted the Disciplinary hearing, where the complainant chose not to be represented. He admitted that he had taken the sweets without permission. He went on to state that he presumed that he could take the sweets as they were in an unmarked box, which he presumed were for general consumption. He admitted that he had made a mistake, but denied that it was theft. The Respondent referred to isolated incidents during Halloween 2013 and Easter 2014, where surplus stock was distributed to staff but this was not comparable to the instant case. The Complainant was invited to an Investigation outcome meeting on 22 February, 2017.The Respondent addressed the mitigating factors raised by the complainant and notified him that the Respondent had decided to dismiss him on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Complainant was notified of the decision by letter of the same date, which incorporated in a right of appeal within 5 days of receiving the letter. No appeal was raised. The Respondent received communication from the complainants Solicitor dated March 2,2017 with a stated intention of referral to the WRC. The Respondent outlined that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct for theft of company property on foot of his having removed and consumed stock without permission. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was on notice that any type of theft of company property, regardless of the value of the item in question, to be an extremely serious matter. The Complainants actions were in contravention of the terms of his contract of employment. The...