ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMENDATION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000934
Complaint/Dispute for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00001326-001 | 07/12/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/03/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Venue: Ardboyne Hotel, Navan, Co. Meath.
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background
The Complainant was employed as a bar supervisor from the 4th of April 2016 to the 29th of September 2015. He was paid at the rate of €563.37 per week. He alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent without due process and fair procedures contrary to the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. He filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 7th of December 2015.
Respondent’s Submission:
The hotel is a luxury five star hotel based in Meath. The Complainant was employed as a bar supervisor under the direction of the bar manager, operations manager and general manager. In the role of a supervisor, cash handling is paramount and the bar supervisor on duty is accountable for ensuring that all cash handling procedures are followed. The Complainant received a written warning in relation to performance issues in January 2015 and it was advised at this meeting that should there be further issues requiring disciplinary action it possibly could lead to dismissal. An extension of this written warning was issued in March 2015 as the Complainant was disciplined following a stock issue.
On the 16th of September 2015 the Complainant on the night in question was the most senior member of the bar team working that shift. There were three bars opened that night. In one bar the barman cashing up informed the complainant that he could not complete the full cashing up procedure due to an issue with his code and therefore was unable to place the bar’s takings in the safe. On the 18th of September 2015 the bar manager opened his desk drawer to discover the night’s takings from the 16th of September. The total takings in this bar were €1372 with €825 in cash. The desk drawer was not locked nor is the office in a secure area.
On the 22nd of September the Complainant was suspended on pay pending an investigation. He attended an investigation meeting and following this, a disciplinary meeting was scheduled. At the Complainant’s disciplinary meeting, he was represented by a fellow employee. The Respondent put it to the Complainant that as the bar supervisor on the 16th of September 2015 it was his responsibility to ensure all cash for all outlets was completed. Furthermore it was put to him that he had neglected to drop cash into the safe and the cash lodgement was left unattended in an unsecure area and no follow up was conducted. The Complainant was unable to provide a satisfactory answer for the unattended takings and for not following the cashing up procedures.
The Complainant was fully aware of the cashing up procedures of the company. The policy and procedures are explicit on the roles and procedures for cashing up. These were not followed and the Complainant was dismissed by letter due to a serious breach of procedures in relation to cash handling.
The Complainant appealed his decision on the 29th of September 2015. The appeal was heard on October 2015. The Complainant stated that the barman left the cash in the drawer. This was disputed separately by the barman. The Complainant was advised in writing that his appeal was not successful and his dismissal for breach of company cash handling procedures in the role of supervisor stood.
Company Position
The disciplinary process was followed throughout. The Complainant was presented with all evidence against him. He was afforded the right to representation and was given a fair hearing. He was advised of his right to appeal which he executed. He was fully aware of the company policy and expectations of a staff member in a supervisory role.
The company refute that the incident that led to the dismissal occurred through no fault of the Complainant, as the supervisor on duty was responsible. On this occasion a considerable sum of money was left unsecure. The actions of the Complainant were irresponsible and unacceptable. The appropriate sanction was dismissal.
Complainant’s Submission
The Complainant stated that on the 16th of September 2016 he was on duty as bar supervisor. The bar manager was either rostered off or had finished early. He was looking after the debs ball in the pre-function area. The ball group moved into the night club. D a barman was working in another bar. At approximately 10.30 pm he went into the bar and D mentioned to him that he had difficulty with his code in depositing cash into a machine. He did not hear from D again and he completed the cash-up sheet in the office. The usual procedure was for D to bring the cash to him to be deposited in the cash machine.
D left the cash in the drawer in the office where he cashed up. The bar manager found the cash in the drawer or the 18th September 2015 that he was called to a meeting on 27t September who advised him that the cash was found in the drawer by the bar manager and that this was contrary to company procedures for cashing up. He was advised that he was being suspended on full pay pending an investigation. Investigation meetings took place on the 25th and 28th of September 2015. A Disciplinary meeting took place on 29th of September 2015 where he was advised that he was being dismissed for not following the correct procedures in relation to cashing up. He appealed the decision and the appeal hearing took place on the 7th October 2015. His appeal was not upheld.
He believes that the Respondent did not follow due process and fair procedures in the manner which he was dismissed. It was his work colleague who left the cash in the drawer. He discovered that D was on holidays during the investigation and disciplinary meetings and he was dismissed before D returned from his holidays. He requested that he be informed of D’s explanation about the incident. The HR and general manager provided no explanation.
The HR manager carried out both the investigation and the disciplinary meetings. This was contrary to the correct procedures. He received no notes form he Respondent in relation to the investigation or minutes of the disciplinary meeting in order for him to prepare an appeal.
The Respondent made reference to a written warning he had received in relation to performance issues in January 2015 and that an extension of this warning was issued in March 2015 in relation to a stock issue. However, he felt that both the warning and the extension were unfair at the time but he did not appeal them.
Findings
The Complainant was dismissed for not following the cashing up procedures of the company. However the Respondent did not follow due process and fair procedures in the manner in which the Complainant was dismissed. It appears that D was not interviewed as to why he did not follow up the company procedure and bring the cash to the Complainant to cash-up on the night.
The HR manager carried out both the investigation meting and the disciplinary meeting. An independent person should have carried out the disciplinary meeting. The Complainant was not provided with any notes of the investigation meeting or the minutes of the disciplinary meeting so that he could prepare for the appeal meeting. These omissions were unfair to the Complainant.
I note that the Complainant raised additional matters at the hearing in relation to outstanding pay for annual leave and for extra hours worked. The only complainant filed by the Complainant with e Work place Relations Commission was the complaint alleging unfair dismissal. However I note that the Respondent stated at the hearing that they would meet with the Complainant to discuss and resolve any outstanding wages due to him.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act, and under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Based on both written and oral evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent when due process and fair procedures are not followed in the manner in which he was dismissed.
I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation €5500 for breaches of section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. This sum must be paid within six weeks of the date of this decision.
Dated: 12th July 2016