Keywords: Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977; Gross Misconduct; Selling Alcohol on Good Friday

The complainant in this case was a shop assistant. Said she made a genuine mistake on the sale of a bottle of alcoholic beer to a customer on Good Friday where she was subsequently unfairly summarily dismissed, without recourse to any fair procedures.

The respondent claimed that this incident was one of many issues that it had with this employee. The complainant’s mistake could have had serious consequences for the business and, following a fair hearing, the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct.

It's not unusual to look at an employment dispute and think that the parties are talking about two separate incidents and certainly in this case there was no meeting of minds.

The respondent presented evidence of the training that was provided to staff for dealing with Alcohol and Tobacco sales. It states that the complainant was given that training and completed a questionnaire as proof of learning, which was signed by the complainant. The respondent said that it could have been in substantial trouble for the sale of alcohol on a prohibited day, including a possible temporary closure of the premises. The respondent said that Good Friday fell on 14 April 2017 and the complainant was scheduled to work in the afternoon. The store had been cordoned off and signs had been erected to ensure that customers and staff were aware that alcoholic products were not for sale on the day. Clearly, in the opinion of the respondent, the complainant did something she was aware she should not have done and that thing (selling alcohol on Good Friday before a change in the law) was so serious it could have resulted in serious trouble for the employer's business.

The complainant claimed that there were no reasonable grounds for the dismissal. It was not fair that the respondent had not reminded staff not to sell alcohol on the day, that the effort to cordon off was obviously not sufficient to stop customers who wanted to access alcohol on the day to do so and the cash tills were not set up to prohibit the sale like it does on other times when alcohol is prohibited.

The parties, of course, also argued about the procedure which followed and resulted in the complainant's dismissal. The WRC Adjudicator said, "I am satisfied that the complainant should have been more vigilant. The sale of one bottle of beer appears minor in isolation however, the possibility of the consequences on the business, with the possible temporary closure should it have been reported and prosecuted are significant. Accordingly, I find that the actions of the respondent were within the range of reasonable responses open to it and that substantial grounds did exist to justify the complainant’s dismissal."

However, the Adjudicator went on to add, "The complainant was served with a letter to attend an investigatory/disciplinary meeting which was not scheduled for over two days into the future. In the meantime, the complainant continued to work in the store and perform her usual tasks. There is no indication that the employer was in such dire straits that it had to get rid of the complainant. It would appear that the respondent was happy for the complainant to perform her tasks until it was able to consider the matters at hand and determine the appropriate course of action. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is not the type of case that summary dismissal would be considered proportional for an act of gross misconduct."

The Adjudicator also found many flaws in the conduct of the disciplinary process and found in favour of the complainant, awarding the equivalent of some 31 weeks' pay by way of compensation.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/June/ADJ-00009098.html