Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A shop worker

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

IR - SC - 00003610

02/01/2025

The worker submits that

He was employed by the employer from  2nd of September 2024 until 2nd of December 2024 when he was told that he was being dismissed for making a mistake which cost the business €100 but was given the option to stay on at work until the New Year.

On 26 November he was  confronted by the  manager and supervisor  about his probation, which he asserts he was unaware of prior to starting the job.

On 27 November: he approached the manager to resolve the issue. During the conversation, she mentioned the owner's concerns about overstaffing and hinted that someone might lose hours or be let go. She also reiterated his probation status.

the worker submits that on 28 November he mistakenly gave a customer €100 cashback after their card was declined. He submits that he  immediately reported the error and offered to deduct the amount from his wages (which was not done).

The worker submits that on 2 December:  the owner, Mr. K returned from holiday and informed the worker that he was to be dismissed  due to the mistake.  Mr. K called the mistake  a “red line.” He gave the worker two options: leave immediately with pay for the week or stay until after Christmas. The worker chose to stay.

The worker submits that on 3 December  he reconsidered his decision to stay until after Christmas and instead decided not to return.  The worker submits that he contacted the manager Ms. C  to inform Mr. K and arrange collection of owed wages. The worker submits that the  manager Ms. C  responded that he was owed nothing and that Mr. K would deduct the €100 from his  pay.

The worker submits that he then phoned to speak with Mr. K who claimed he misunderstood the previous conversation. The worker submits that multiple people became involved in the call during which the worker revealed what the manager Ms. C  had said about overstaffing, which Mr. K denied.  

The employer submit that

the worker commenced employment in the employer supermarket on 2nd of September 2024 on a  probationary period of six months.

 During this time, he was trained in almost every area of cash handling stocking merchandising and general convenience store duties.

The employer submits that  there were a number of issues during the trial period most of which could be rectified once brought to management attention in a timely manner however,  a red line issue occurred on 28th of November 2024 resulting in a financial loss for the employer  which the employer states left him with no alternative but to terminate the workers employment.

The employer submits that he  informed the worker of this on the 2nd  of December 2024 when  he  returned to the shop after being away for a short break.

As it was December and approaching Christmas, the employer did not want to leave the worker without a job and so he offered to keep the worker on until the New year.

The worker accepted this offer to stay on until the New Year but didn’t turn up for work the following day and phoned in to say he was not returning to work.

The worker advised the hearing that he had been dismissed following an incident where he had made a mistake which resulted in him paying out €100 to a customer whose card had been declined.

The worker stated that many other staff made mistakes but were not fired for these mistakes. 

The employer advised the hearing that his was not the first mistake made by the worker but stated that he had let other mistakes go.  The employer stated that there had been other mistakes involving the worker mixing up amounts to be paid on utility bills by customers, but the employer stated that these mistakes could be rectified once they were spotted early.  The employer added that most of these type of mistakes were reversible if they were spotted and reported within 40 minutes.  The employer stated that it was only when the worker had made a mistake which involved the employer losing €100 that felt this was the final straw and he had to let the worker go.

The employer stated that he  himself was not on the premises when the mistake had happened but that that he had called the worker to a meeting as soon as he returned to work and discovered what had happened.   

The employer stated that he raised the matter with the worker and told him that he would have to let him go.   The worker accepted  that he had made the mistake.

The employer advised the hearing that he had told the worker he would have to let him go but he stated that as it was a few weeks before Christmas he did not want to leave the worker without money and so he told him he could leave there and then or if he wanted to he could stay on until the New year.   The employer state that the worker chose to stay on until the New year and thanked him.

 The employer stated that the worker did not show up for work the next day and at around 11 o clock the manager Ms. C saw a message on her phone form the worker stating that he had decided not to come back and to work and so she returned his call.   The worker then asked to speak to the employer Mr. K.    

The worker advised the hearing  that before handing the phone to Mr. K the worker states that he heard Ms. C   in the background saying, "that chap is autistic".   The worker stated that Ms. C in saying this was referring to him.

The worker stated that his mother had also been listening in to the phone call at the time and she confirmed  that she heard this being said .  

Witness for the employer Mr. K stated that he did not hear Ms. C make this comment he also stated that the shop was busy and noisy at the time and there was a lot of talk in the background,  he stated that Ms. C  had called him from a distance to take the phone. 

The worker stated that he did not discuss this with Mr. K as his mother took the phone from him and spoke to Mr. K herself .  Mr. K stated that this matter was never raised with him by the worker.   The worker’s mother at the hearing stated that she had told Mr. K on the phone that this staff member  had treated the worker badly and that it was very upsetting for her as a mother to see her son being treated like this.

The worker stated that he had also previously been called to the office by Mr. K who told him that he wasn’t fiery enough to deal with the type of customers who frequented the shop, the worker stated that Mr. K had then compared him to other female members of staff whom Mr. K had said were better at dealing with customers and at shouting at customers when needed.

 The employer Mr. K at the hearing stated that he had called the worker aside and told him that he needed to be tougher with the customers.  Mr. K added that his shop is frequented by all sorts of customers many of whom are under the influence of drugs and who are abusive towards staff and shout at them .  Mr K stated that he had concerns that the  worker could not handle this and so he had raised this with him earlier in his employment.

The worker’s mother in her evidence stated that it was very upsetting for her to hear her son called autistic when he was not and also to hear from him that his manager was telling him to toughen up.

I note that the reason cited by the employer for the dismissal was that lots of mistakes had been made by the worker, but it was only when a mistake of the workers led to the loss of €100 by the business that Mr. K had let him go.   I also note that the worker did not deny the mistake.

 I note that Mr. K did not dismiss the worker straightaway as the incident happened at the start of December, but the employer told him he could stay on until the New Year given that the incident took place a few weeks before Christmas.   Furthermore, I note that after having opted to stay on until the New Year the worker did not turn up for work the next day and advised the employer that he would not be returning.    

Having considered all of the circumstances of this dispute I do not find in favour of the worker in relation to this matter.

Having considered all of the circumstances of this dispute I do not find in favour of the worker in relation to this matter.