This case surrounded a decision by the respondent in which the respondent terminated the claimant's contract following evidence that the claimant had breached the employee purchases policy.

The respondent's head of security installed two CCTV cameras following a request from the store manager; this was done without the notification of the staff. The store manager gave evidence to the court to the effect that there had been serious breaches of the company policy in the deli area of the store in relation to the employee purchases policy. This policy requires employees who purchase food on the premises should get their receipt signed by the store manager.

Following the installation of the CCTV cameras, the respondent called the claimant to attend an investigation meeting. The respondent claimed that she declined the offer to have anyone present. The claimant was shown CCTV footage of her consuming food without payment; the claimant admitted this allegation. This was found to be in clear breach of the employee purchase policy on which all employees were regularly trained. In the disciplinary meeting that followed the claimant was suspended with pay pending a further disciplinary meeting.

The respondent noted how following this the assistant store manager took over the process. At the second disciplinary meeting the claimant was informed that due to the seriousness of the breach her contract of employment was with immediate effect terminated.

The Claimant suggested to the tribunal that whilst she has admitted that she had breached the policy which she was aware of, the food would have been "thrown out at the end of each day". The claimant also relied upon her good rapport with the customers and the lack of issues/difficulties at work prior to this event. The claimant had been unsuccessful in securing alternative employment since her dismissal.

The tribunal stated that whilst it acknowledges the seriousness of the issue, it was "of the view that the investigation and disciplinary process actually invoked by the company fell short of acceptable practice."

The tribunal thus found the claimant to have been unfairly dismissed. However, it noted that she had significantly contributed to this dismissal and therefore the tribunal awarded her €8800.

The claimant was further awarded €511.98 (which was equivalent to two week's pay) in accordance to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005.
http://bit.ly/1rlHWv4