Dismissal for staff discount misuse was unfair where the employee's carelessness, rather than deliberate dishonesty, made dismissal a disproportionate sanction.

The Complainant said that he had been unfairly dismissed from his role as a Sales Advisor after his staff discount facility was misused. He accepted that the discount card/app had been used improperly but maintained that the misuse had been carried out by his former domestic partner without his knowledge. He said she had copied or accessed the discount facility through his tablet and then made it available to family members and acquaintances. When the abuse was brought to his attention, he said he immediately stopped her using it and offered to repay the company’s alleged loss. He relied on his eight years’ service, clean disciplinary record, cooperation, and good performance. His union argued that he had not deliberately abused the scheme, that the policy was unclear, and that dismissal was disproportionate where lesser sanctions were available and the real wrongdoing was that of his partner.

The Respondent said that its internal monitoring team had identified serious anomalies on the Complainant’s staff discount account. The card/app had been used on 73 occasions between 31 October and 17 December 2024, at multiple locations in Ireland and the UK, often almost simultaneously. Only one transaction could be linked to the Complainant personally. The Respondent said the discount scheme was a major employee benefit, available to thousands of staff, and that abuse of it had to be treated seriously. It maintained that the policy was well publicised and that the Complainant knew the anti-abuse rules. Following an investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal, management concluded that trust and confidence had broken down. The Respondent relied on the principle that an Adjudicator should not second-guess a reasonable employer’s disciplinary decision where a fair process had been followed, particularly where an employee benefit was deliberately or carelessly exposed to misuse.

The Adjudicating Officer accepted that the Respondent had followed fair procedures and that the staff discount misuse was serious (and that the employer had been entitled to treat protection of the scheme as important). However, the decisive issue was proportionality. The Complainant had not personally used the discount facility on most occasions and had sworn that he did not know his partner had copied or misused it. His fault was carelessness with the tablet rather than deliberate fraud. In those circumstances, dismissal was found to be excessive, particularly where serious alternatives such as a final written warning were available. The complaint succeeded on the basis of disproportionate sanction, but compensation was reduced by 50% because the Complainant’s carelessness had contributed significantly to the dismissal. Final redress amount awarded was accordingly €4000. This was halved to €2,000 gross pay.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that staff benefit policies clearly define misuse, careless misuse, responsibility for third-party access, and the range of possible sanctions. If dismissal is to be a potential outcome, the policy should say so plainly and distinguish deliberate fraud from negligent failure to secure access. 
  
  
• Before dismissing, test proportionality separately from proof of misconduct. Even where a policy breach is serious, the decision-maker should ask whether the employee personally acted dishonestly, whether the loss was repaid or repayable and whether the employee cooperated. Also, whether there was prior service or a clean record, and whether a final written warning, repayment, withdrawal of the benefit, demotion or monitoring would protect the business.
  
  
• Ensure that appeal officers do not simply endorse the first decision. They should show that they reconsidered the facts, the employee’s explanation, the effect of dismissal, and the available alternatives. Where the employee’s wrongdoing was carelessness rather than deliberate abuse, the reasons for treating trust as irreparably broken should be recorded in detail.

The full case can be found here.