Knowles v Dunnes Stores Timepiece Restaurant [2012] IREAT UD2575/2009
Decision Number:
Published on: 05/10/2012
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
The claimant, who worked on the hot food counter in a restaurant in one of the respondent‟s stores for 12 years, was dismissed for gross misconduct for eating the food on display during a shift. This behaviour violated company policy. Evidence was given by the then manager in July 2009 that employees were getting free food. In order to monitor this more closely, the manager got security to keep a close eye on CCTV. Security reported that the claimant WAS eating and drinking during their shift without paying for the items and at times, in the view of customers. 64Such actions were described by the manager as “continuous grazing” yet the claimant said that she was just “picking” at the food and tasting it. The claimant was also not wearing gloves whilst handling food which again breached company policy. An Investigatory meeting was held for which the claimant and security manager were both present. A disciplinary meeting followed shortly thereafter which decided to suspend the claimant with pay until the next meeting. At the next meeting the claimant said that she was testing the food for temperature and taste. At the final disciplinary hearing the claimant was dismissed for serious breach of trust. The claimant was not informed of her right to appeal the decision to dismiss her as this procedure was well known the employee and set out on the noticeboard.The Employment Tribunal heard evidence from the head chef and the claimant. The claimant argued that she would have appealed the decision rather than wait for the EAT hearing and that she did not receive a copy of the new company handbook. The claimant said her employer permitted the employees to have minerals as the water cooler was out of order. The tribunal held that the behaviour was reprehensible but not misconduct as the manager failed to follow his own procedures relating top hygiene and sales. A more appropriate course of action would have been a written or verbal warning prior to dismissal. The manager also erred in not informing the claimant of the right to appeal. The claimant was awarded compensation in the sum of €10,000.00. http://bit.ly/SFHIl0
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 05/10/2012
Q&A
How do I handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →