The WRC upheld the dismissal of a retail employee for gross misconduct, finding that unauthorised removal of company products justified dismissal and that the disciplinary process, including the use of CCTV evidence, was fair.

The Complainant was employed as a fragrance consultant from July 2016 until her dismissal for gross misconduct in June 2025. She accepted that she had taken a gift-with-purchase item and other products, but maintained that the dismissal was unfair, disproportionate, and outside the range of reasonable responses. She argued that the items were of minimal value, that there was no meaningful loss to the business, and that a warning or lesser sanction should have been considered. She also challenged the use of CCTV, saying that it had been taken out of context and used in a targeted way. She further claimed that the disciplinary process was retaliatory, arising after she had raised concerns about sickness absence procedures, privacy, data protection, and alleged wage underpayments.

The Respondent contended that the dismissal was fair, reasonable, and based solely on the Complainant’s misconduct. It relied on its disciplinary procedure, which classified dishonesty, theft, unauthorised possession or misuse of company property as gross misconduct. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had asked for permission to take a gift-with-purchase item and had been told that she could not do so. CCTV later showed her taking that item and leaving the store with it. Further footage showed her removing products from another beauty counter and placing them in a bag before leaving. The Respondent maintained that trust was fundamental in a retail environment and that taking stock or promotional items without permission destroyed that trust. It said the Complainant was invited to a disciplinary hearing, warned that dismissal was a possible outcome, offered representation and an opportunity to respond, and given an appeal. The Respondent denied any retaliatory motive.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the dismissal was not unfair. The Respondent had established substantial grounds for dismissal based on the Complainant’s conduct. The Complainant had taken a gift-with-purchase item after being told she could not have it and had also taken products from another counter. The Adjudication Officer held that honesty and trust were fundamental to the relationship between a retailer and a sales assistant, regardless of the monetary value of the items. The use of CCTV was found to be lawful and consistent with the Respondent’s policy, as it was used to establish unauthorised conduct. Although there had been delay in progressing the investigation, no procedural unfairness arose. The Complainant had been given notice, representation rights, an opportunity to respond and an appeal. Her claims that the dismissal was retaliatory or linked to health and safety, privacy, data protection or wage complaints were rejected. All complaints failed.

Employers should:

1. Ensure that disciplinary rules clearly identify theft, dishonesty, unauthorised possession of property and misuse of stock as potential gross misconduct. This is particularly important in retail environments, where trust is central to the employment relationship. Promotional stock, samples and gifts-with-purchase should be treated expressly as company or client property.
2. Ensure that employees are aware of the CCTV policy and the purposes for which footage may be reviewed. CCTV should be used proportionately, for a legitimate purpose, and in accordance with the employer’s policy. If footage is relied on in a disciplinary process, the employee should be told what it shows and given a fair opportunity to respond.
3. Keep misconduct processes separate from grievances, pay queries or protected complaints. Where an employee alleges retaliation, the employer must be able to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from misconduct. 
   
   

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/may/adj-00060617.html