Employee v Employer
EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO. UD104/2015
Claimant: Ms Sarah Jane Judge B.L. instructed by, Tiernans Solicitors, 15 Church St, Dundalk, Co Louth
Respondent: Mr Tiernan Doherty, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
The respondent is a large DIY and home store. The claimant worked in one of the stores as a manager. On the 30 th of July 2014 he was summarily dismissed for breaching the respondent's refund and exchange policy and for breach of confidence and trust.
A sales assistant (SG) gave evidence of and incident that occurred on Friday the 14 th of July 2014. A customer came in late to exchange a sliding door but SG's till at customer service had been closed by the claimant. The customer wanted a more expensive door so had to pay an extra €35.00. The claimant instructed SG to put the €35.00 into a bag in the till with the items code numbers and the transaction would be processed when the till opened in the morning. No receipt could be issued as the till was closed. SG was in work at 9am the following morning, when she opened her till the money bag with the €35.00 was still in the till and remained there until 12.30pm. SG reminded the claimant he had to do the exchange and he instructed her to return wallpaper to the back of the store, this meant she had to leave her till (this was not her job when she was on the customer service desk). When SG returned the claimant was at her till and the money bag with the €35 was gone but there was no exchange receipt in the till. Normally both a manager and SG have to sign the exchange receipt and it would be at the top of the pile. SG found a '00' receipt at the bottom of the pile which means it was a straight like for like exchange money wise. SG was concerned so informed AS in the cash office that the €35.00 was missing. SG was upset about the incident so called in sick on Sunday. She spoke to the store manager KR about the incident and made a statement at the next available time which was the following Friday. SG had a normal working relationship with the claimant.
AS from the cash office gave evidence of what SG had told her of the incident that day. AS saw the €35.00 in the till that morning when she was putting in the float and queried it, she was told by the claimant and SG that it was for an exchange that had to be processed. AS gave a statement to KR the following Friday.
KR, the store manager was informed if the incident by SG. She explained the details of the transaction. KR then spoke to AS and asked both AS and SG for written statements. It was agreed with HR that KR would have to investigate the incident. KR gave the claimant the invitation letter to the investigation meeting on the 22 nd of July for the meeting on the 23 rd of July, he was informed that he could bring a companion. HR constructed the investigation invitation letter so KR is not aware as to why the allegations were not outlined in more detail.
The claimant declined to have anyone with him for this meeting. The claimant accepted the way the transaction had occurred but said he removed the €35 as other people might be using the till. SG would be on the till all...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL