ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00060617

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  19/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

1. In accordance with section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 and section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on March 19th 2026, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints.  The complainant, Ms Emanuela Byrne, represented herself with the support of Ms Catalina Gologan.  Ms Byrne’s former employer, Parfums Christian Dior (Ireland) Limited was represented by Ms Mary Paula Guinness BL, instructed by Mr Bernard Martin of DLA Piper Solicitors.  Witnesses for the company were an account manager, Ms Kate Tobin, an area manager, Mr Dave Laverty, the HR business partner, Ms Kay Robbie, an area manager, Ms Angela McElroy and a section area manager, Ms Alison Chapman.  Ms Byrne was employed by Parfums Christian Dior (Ireland) Limited at its concession store in Boots in Liffey Valley Shopping Centre and the operations support manager for Boots, Mr Ciarán Langly, also gave evidence.    
2. While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Ms Byrne as “the complainant” and to Parfums Christian Dior (Ireland) Limited as “the respondent.”
3. Two days before the hearing, the complainant wrote to the WRC and requested permission to amend her complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and instead, to submit a complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. When this complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act was submitted to the WRC on October 31st 2025, it was three months after the initial complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act were submitted and it is my view that the complainant had sufficient time to seek advice about the legislation under which she wanted to make her complaints.  I noted that, on March 18th 2026, the complainant sent the WRC a submission on her complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare Act 2005, and, before proceeding with the hearing on March 19th, I informed her that she was entitled to proceed with her complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, but she was not permitted to submit a new complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act. 
4. At the opening of the hearing, the complainant said that complaint reference number CA-00073450-002 above is a duplicate of the first complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and is withdrawn. She also stated that she wished to withdraw complaint reference CA-00073450-005, under the Health Act 2007. 

Background:

5. In July 2016, the complainant commenced in a role as a fragrance consultant in the respondent’s concession unit in Boots, Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. Arising from a disciplinary investigation in May 2025, on June 10th, she was dismissed for gross misconduct.  The letter of dismissal issued to her on that day concluded that, on March 2nd 2025, she took a “gift with purchase set,” without permission.  A “gift with purchase set” is a product given to customers who purchase certain products of a specific value.  In the same letter, the investigating manager also concluded that, on March 7th, without permission, the complainant took products belonging to other beauty brands from a drawer in Boots, in Liffey Valley Shopping Centre.
6. The complainant claims that, on substantive and procedural grounds, her dismissal was unfair. Her position is that the decision to dismiss her was disproportionate and outside the range of reasonable responses in relation to her conduct.
7. Under the heading of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, the complainant alleges that she was penalised by being dismissed, because, in September 2024, she raised concerns about the respondent’s sickness absence policy, breaches of health and safety regulations and the processing of sensitive personal data by the HR department.
8. The third issue to be considered here is a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The complainant submitted that she was penalised for raising concerns in September 2024, when, in April 2025, she was not provided with written confirmation of a change in her wages.

CA-00073450-001:

Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Chronology Leading to the Dismissal of the Complainant

9. Ms Guinness provided a comprehensive submission setting out the respondent’s position with regard to the complainant’s claims. I have taken account of the chronology of events that are set out in that submission which led to the dismissal of the complainant on June 10th 2025. 
10. From the commencement of her employment in June 2016, the complainant was subject to various policies and procedures including Boots Security Rules and the respondent’s Disciplinary Procedures. Copies of these documents were included in the respondent’s booklet for the hearing.  The Disciplinary Procedure provides that gross misconduct includes,

Committing or giving the Company reasonable grounds for believing that you have committed any material act of dishonesty;

Theft or unauthorised possession or misuse of Company property, another team member, a contractor’s employee or an unauthorised visitor (sic).

11. The complainant had a history of absences and, when she returned from sick leave on Saturday, March 1st 2025, the account manager, Ms Kate Tobin wanted to have a welfare check with her to see if she needed any support. The complainant responded defensively to Ms Tobin’s request for a meeting and asked, “Who instigated this?”  She asked to see the questions that would be put to her at the meeting.  Ms Tobin showed the complainant the standard questions asked at welfare meetings and the complainant replied that she didn’t want to talk about personal business.  She said that she didn’t think that a meeting was necessary and that “the absences would go away when the year started again at the end of March.”  Ms Tobin explained that the absence policy is based on a rolling year and not on a calendar year.  Later that day, when Ms Tobin asked the complainant to put away her mobile phone while she was working, the complainant responding by shouting at Ms Tobin.  She apologised later.
12. The next day, Sunday, March 2nd, the complainant was again texting on her phone, but Ms Tobin didn’t say anything to her because she wanted to speak to the area manager, Mr Laverty, about the previous day’s incident. The complainant asked Ms Tobin if she could take a “gift with purchase” (GWP) for her daughter’s birthday.  Ms Tobin told her that she couldn’t take one because they were for customers who purchased 100ml of fragrance.  On Monday, March 3rd, when she checked the stock, Ms Tobin found that one of the 10 GWPs that should have been in stock was missing.
13. On Monday, March 3rd, Ms Tobin spoke to Mr Laverty about how the complainant reacted to on March 1st when she wanted to talk to her about her absence and about the missing GWP. Mr Laverty contacted the Boots security team and asked to see the footage of the area where the complainant worked.  There was a delay before he could view the CCTV and, on April 10th, he looked at the footage with Mr Langley, the operations support manager from Boots.  They observed the following incidents:
14. On March 2nd 2025, the complainant can be seen taking the GWP set and signing it out to herself. She is seen placing the bag with the GWP into a Tesco bag and she is then seen leaving the premises.  On March 7th, she is observed opening the bottom drawer at the Yves St Laurent (YSL) counter and taking two refillable testers.  She can then be seen opening a drawer of a display cabinet and taking out Valentino Go spray.  She is visible on the CCTV removing the three items from the YSL counter and placing them in a white bag.  She can be seen at 19.44 leaving the premises with the three items.
15. On May 6th 2025, the HR business partner, Ms Kay Robbie, invited the complainant to a disciplinary meeting on May 14th. The area manager for Scotland, Ms Angela McElroy, was appointed to chair the meeting.  The complainant was invited to be accompanied by a union official or a colleague.  The letter set out the reasons for holding the meetings, which were that, on March 2nd, she left work with a GWP, which she was not authorised to take, and that on March 7th, she took three items of another beauty brand. 
16. The complainant replied at 19.09 on May 6th and complained about the use of CCTV. She claimed also that the allegations of theft were malicious.  She claimed that the disciplinary hearing “does not have real legal basis” and she asked Ms Robbie to re-consider her request to attend a disciplinary meeting.  Ms Robbie replied on May 8th and pointed to the respondent’s Employee Privacy Notice which includes a statement confirming that CCTV is in operation in the store.
17. On May 9th, the complainant asked for the disciplinary hearing to be postponed. Then, on May 14th, she asked Ms Robbie to proceed and to provide her with an outcome “in absentia.”  On May 20th, Ms Robbie informed the complainant that the disciplinary hearing would proceed on May 22nd and that a potential outcome may be that she would be dismissed.
18. On May 22nd, Ms McElroy held a disciplinary meeting over Microsoft Teams. Although Ms McElroy said that she had been informed that the complainant would not attend the meeting, she waited for her to join the call, but she did not join.  She was offered the opportunity to make written submissions but she did not do so.
19. The respondent’s policy on the use of CCTV is included in their employee handbook, referred to as the “People Guide.” A copy was included in the respondent's papers for the hearing.  An assistant operations manager joined the meeting on May 22nd and he showed Ms McElroy the footage of the complainant at work on March 2nd and 7th. 
20. On June 4th, Ms McElroy interviewed the area manager, Mr Dave Laverty. On June 10th, she reached a decision to dismiss the complainant because of dishonesty, theft or unauthorised possession or misuse of company property, conduct that brings the company into disrepute and acting in breach of her duty of good faith to the company.  Ms McElroy concluded that the complainant’s action “clearly meet the threshold for gross misconduct for which summary dismissal is deemed appropriate.”  On June 10th, she wrote to her to confirm that she was dismissed.
21. On June 11th, the complainant submitted an appeal of her dismissal. In a letter to the area manager, Ms Alison Chapman, she said that there were two grounds for her appeal:

• CCTV evidence taken out of context, misinterpreted and used in a discriminatory and targeted way;
• Failure to consider mitigating circumstances. The complainant claimed that her judgement was poor due to work-related stress and a medical condition.

22. On June 19th, the complainant submitted a further ground for her appeal. She claimed that her dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the delay raising the CCTV evidence.  At the appeal hearing, on July 2nd, the complainant agreed that the took the items from the store on March 2nd and 7th.  She said that her appeal was about the process that resulted in her dismissal.  She informed Ms Chapman that she was autistic and that this was the reason she had declined to attend the disciplinary meeting.  She said that she feels overwhelmed in social situations.  She said that she hadn’t put this forward as a reason at the time.
23. The complainant told Ms Chapman that she had always been entitled to one free gift. She suggested that this was an unwritten rule and that account managers had been inconsistent in how they responded to a request to take a gift.  She confirmed that she was not given permission to take a gift, but that she took it anyway.  She said that the CCV was “taken out of context” and she suggested that she would have asked security if the record could be edited from the CCTV.     
24. On July 3rd, the complainant wrote to Ms Chapman by email and said that she wanted to withdraw the first and second grounds of her appeal. She said that she would not accept the notes of the meeting of July 2nd and that she wanted her appeal to considered on a new written statement.  She said that the only ground on which she wanted to base her appeal was,

“Procedural unfairness due to withholding information for over two months and due to significant delay (over two months) between the alleged incident and the raising of the formal allegations and CCTV evidence, and why I strongly believe that the process was unfair.”

25. The following day, the complainant wrote again to Ms Chapman. In her email, she said,

“I would be open to discussing the possibility of a voluntary redundancy or a mutually agreed exist arrangement.”

26. On July 15th, Ms Chapman wrote to the complainant to confirm that the decision to dismiss her had not changed as a result of her appeal. Ms Chapman concluded that any delay dealing with the disciplinary investigation was not excessive and that the complainant was not prejudiced by the delay. 

The Complainant’s Grievance

27. On May 12th 2025, the complainant raised a grievance about an absence investigation meeting she was invited to attend on September 13th 2024. The complainant said that she had declined to attend the meeting because she was concerned about breaches of privacy and data protection. 
28. On May 21st, a HR business partner “Ms D,” wrote to the complainant to let her know that she had been appointed to investigate her grievance about the sickness absence policy. As she was on annual leave, the complainant replied on June 3rd and asked Ms D to respond to her grievance in writing.  On July 17th however, following some correspondence between the complainant and Ms D, the complainant said that she wanted to withdraw from the grievance process.

Salary Increase

29. In an email dated April 18th 2024, the complainant was informed that her salary would increase from €14,905.50 to 16,321.85. On April 22nd 2025, she sent an email to the head of HR, the compensation and benefits manager and Ms Robbie, the HR business partner.  She raised concerns about her annual salary increase for 2024 and 2025 and her commission for January and February 2025.  She said that she had not received €16,321.85 in 2024, but that she had received €15,468 and that a balance of €854.00 was due to her.  She asked for a 2% pay increase to be applied to her salary from April 2024 and she looked for information regarding commission for January and February 2025.  She said that there was a shortfall in her January commission of €11.54 and in her February commission of €58.70.
30. Ms Robbie investigated the complainant’s grievance. She discovered that, in respect of the 2024 salary increase, the complainant had been underpaid by €845.33.  Ms Robbie found that some confusion arose from the fact that commission is calculated in sterling pounds and not euros.  The commission for January and February 2025 was re-calculated and, in her May salary, the complainant was paid an additional €11.54 for January 2025 and an additional €10.29 for February.  No further issues were raised by the complainant.

Evidence of the Respondent’s Witnesses:

Evidence of the Account Manager, Ms Kate Tobin

31. Ms Tobin said that she has been an account manager for nine years and that she has managed the Parfums Dior brand for almost three years. She said that the complainant’s job is to sell fragrance, makeup and skin care.  Ms Tobin said that, for customers purchasing 100ml of perfume, they receive a free gift.  The gift is categorised as stock. 
32. Ms Tobin said that the complainant had a history of absences. When an employee returns to work after an absence, a return to work meeting takes place.  On Saturday, March 1st 2025, when she returned to work after being absent, Ms Tobin said that the complainant refused to attend a return to work meeting.  She told Ms Tobin that she was uncomfortable discussing private matters.   Later, the same day at work, Ms Tobin said that she observed the complainant texting on her phone and she told her to put it away.  She said that the complainant became defensive and shouted at her, although she apologised later.
33. On Sunday, March 2nd, Ms Tobin said that the complainant was texting on her phone again while she was at work. Ms Tobin said that she didn’t approach her because she didn’t want a repeat of the shouting of the day before.  Later that day, Ms Tobin said that the complainant asked her if she could have one of the GWPs and Ms Tobin told her that she couldn’t and that they were only for customers purchasing 100ml of perfume.  The complainant said that she wanted one for her daughter’s birthday.  Ms Tobin said that she responded that she would “ask Dave,” who is the area manager.  She said that she knew that there were 10 100ml bottles of perfume in stock and 10 gifts.  When she came to work on Monday, March 3rd, Ms Tobin said that one of the gifts was missing, but that a 100ml perfume product hadn’t been purchased.
34. In response to a question from Ms Guinness, Ms Tobin said that she never gave the complainant permission to take the gift.

Cross-examining of Ms Tobin by the Complainant

35. In response to a question from the complainant, Ms Tobin said that she never requested the CCTV footage of her at work on March 2nd. The complainant asked Ms Tobin about the security policy in the store.  Ms Tobin replied that a copy was given to the complainant.  She clarified that the policy is a Boots security policy because the respondent’s employees in Liffey Valley Shopping Centre work in Boots.  Ms Tobin said that she told the complainant that the area manager, Mr Laverty, had to approve “sign outs” of stock.  The complainant said that she wasn’t aware, that the policy isn’t clear and that she relied on “past practices.”
36. In response to re-direction from Ms Guinness, Ms Tobin said that she is not aware of a previous policy that permits employees to take products from the store.

Evidence of the Area Manager, Mr Dave Laverty

37. Mr Laverty said that he is the area manager for Ireland and the Isle of Man. He started with the company in 2017 and he has been in his current position for three years. 
38. Mr Laverty agreed with Ms Guinness that the initial complaint brought to him for an investigation was the issue of the missing GWP set. He said that he interviewed Ms Tobin on March 10th.  A few days later, Mr Laverty said that the store manager and the operations support manager for Boots became involved.  When he looked at the CCTV footage on April 10th 2025, Mr Laverty said that there was further evidence of products being missing on a second date.  Mr Laverty said that he provided evidence of what he saw on the CCTV record and he escalated the matter to the HR department.   He said that the area manager, Ms Angela McElroy, contacted him during the disciplinary process and he was asked if he gave the complainant permission to take the GWP.  He replied that he hadn’t been asked for permission and that he didn’t give permission.  He said that the company has no policy that states that staff can take products.

Cross-examining of Mr Laverty by the Complainant

39. The complainant asked Mr Laverty is she was considered to be a risk to the business from the time that he viewed the CCTV footage on April 10th until May 6th 2025. Mr Laverty said that he carried out a fact-finding exercise and that he didn’t want to put the complainant through a difficult conversation before he established the facts.  He said that he doesn’t know when the management in Boots reviewed the CCTV footage.  He said that, during the time referred to by the complainant, he provided a statement and gathered information and liaised with the HR department.
40. In response to the complainant asking, “Why was I not suspended?” Mr Laverty said that, during the investigation, nothing had been confirmed. He said that he provided the HR department with the information he had.  He said that the complainant wasn’t found guilty until she provided her own version of the events.  He said that he wouldn’t suspend someone until an investigation was concluded.
41. The complainant asked Mr Laverty if it was necessary to look at the CCTV footage. He replied that he needed to review it so that he could make a decision about what had happened.  The complainant asked if there was a less intrusive option and Mr Laverty replied that he didn’t think it was intrusive and that the use of the CCTV was proportionate.
42. Before he finished giving evidence, Ms Guinness asked Mr Laverty about the use of the CCTV. He said that there was no other way of establishing what had happened.

Evidence of Mr Ciarán Langley, Operations Support Manager, Boots

43. On March 3rd 2025, Mr Langley said that he got a phone call from the store manager in Liffey Valley about missing product. He looked at the CCTV footage of March 2nd and at two or three shifts where the complainant was on duty the previous week.
44. Mr Langley then played a recording of the CCTV footage he examined and he described it to me. The footage shows the complainant at work on March 2nd, taking the GFP at the end of her shift and leaving the front of the store. 
45. Footage of March 7th shows the complainant taking a product from a Liz Earle counter, de-activating it on a security pad and later, placing the product in a bag and leaving the store.

Evidence of the HR Business Partner, Ms Kay Robbie

46. Ms Robbie is the HR business partner supporting the respondent’s retail team. She explained that the respondent has no actual stores in the UK and Ireland and that they operate from units in other stores such as Boots.  In relation to the Liffey Valley store, the respondent’s stock is the property of Boots.  Ms Robbie said that the complainant signed her agreement to comply with Boots security rules.
47. Ms Guinness directed Ms Robbie to the respondent’s disciplinary procedure, which, at section 5, provides that an employee may be dismissed for gross misconduct. Section 4(d) of the procedure provides an example of gross misconduct:

“Committing or giving to the Company reasonable grounds for believing that you have committed any material act of dishonesty.”

48. Ms Guinness then referred to an email the complainant sent to Ms Robbie, Mr Laverty and two other staff on April 22nd 2025. In the email, the complainant raised concerns about her wages in 2024 and 2025 and about commission pay in January and February 2025.  On May 2nd, Ms Robbie replied to the complainant and provided clarification to her about her queries.  The complainant replied to Ms Robbie on May 6th and thanked her for investigating her concerns and for reaching a conclusion in a timely manner.
49. Ms Guinness referred to an email that the complainant sent to Ms Robbie on May 12th, in which she raised a formal grievance about the respondent’s sickness absence policy and privacy and personal data protection issues. Ms Guinness asked me to read the correspondence that followed from the complainant’s email of May 12th which was included in the respondent’s book of papers for the hearing.  Ms Robbie replied to the complainant on May 13th and told her that her complaint would be investigated.  As the complainant was absent due to sickness, Ms Robbie gave her the option of having her grievance investigated based on the information she provided in her email of the previous day.  The complainant replied and said that she would let her know how she wanted to proceed.
50. Ms Guinness directed Ms Robbie to her letter of May 6th 2025 to the complainant in which she invited her to a disciplinary meeting. Ms Robbie said that she didn’t think about suspending the complainant because she didn’t know if she had taken the GWP without permission.  She said that she looked at the CCTV footage in advance of the disciplinary meeting on May 14th.
51. On May 8th, in response to a query from the complainant, Ms Robbie sent her an mail in which she told the complainant that she had not been the subject of covert surveillance. Ms Robbie told the complainant that the respondent’s “People Guide” and signage posted in the Boots store in Liffey Valley provides information that makes employees aware of the use of CCTV in the store.
52. On May 9th, the complainant sent an email to Ms Robbie in which she asked if the meeting scheduled for May 14th could be postponed due to her being sick and on a two week holiday. On May 14th, she asked for the disciplinary hearing to be conducted without her and for an outcome to be provided “in absentia.”

Cross-examining of Ms Robbie by the Complainant

53. The complainant asked Ms Robbie why her sickness absence record was of concern to the HR department. Ms Robbie replied that, when the number of absences reach a certain level, a trigger is hit.  The procedure is for a manager to conduct a return to work meeting after each absence, and, when an employee is absent three times in three months, the store manager is required to carry out an investigation.
54. Ms Robbie said that the complainant was contacted by Ms Tobin when the absence trigger was hit. Ms Tobin conducted a return to work investigation. 
55. The complainant referred to the letter of May 6th in which she was invited to a disciplinary investigation and her dismissal on June 10th. She asked why she wasn’t considered a risk on May 6th.  Ms Robbie replied that the management were gathering facts and also, the complainant was absent for most of the month of May.
56. The complainant asked Ms Robbie if the HR department was aware that she asked them to contact her directly about her absences. Ms Robbie named the person in the HR team who was supporting Ms Tobin with regard to the complainant’s absences.  Another named employee was also appointed to contact the complainant about her absences.  Ms Robbie said that she herself responded to the complainant’s queries about her pay increase.

Evidence of the Section Area Manager, Ms Angela McElroy

57. Ms McElroy said that a remote disciplinary meeting over Microsoft Teams was scheduled for May 22nd 2025. On May 14th, the complainant asked the company to proceed with the disciplinary investigation and to reach a conclusion in her absence. 
58. Ms Guinness asked Ms McElroy why she decided that the complainant’s actions amounted to gross misconduct. She replied that, based on the evidence that the account manager, Ms Tobin, told the complainant that she was not permitted to take the GWP when she asked for it, her actions were planned.  Ms McElroy said that the complainant placed the product where it could be picked up.  It was a breach of the company’s disciplinary procedure, amounting to theft and was a material act of dishonesty.

Evidence of Ms Alison Chapman, Senior Regional Manager

59. Ms Chapman said that she established that the disciplinary procedure was followed fairly. She said that she is satisfied that the decision to dismiss the complainant was correct.
60. Ms Guinness asked Ms Chapman if she considered a lesser sanction than dismissal. Ms Chapman said that she considered precedents in the company and she noted that they had taken a zero tolerance approach to theft and dishonesty.

Cross-examining of Ms Chapman by the Complainant

61. The complainant reminded Ms Chapman that she admitted that she took the GWP.
62. In response to a final question from Ms Guinness, Ms Chapman agreed that she knew that the complainant didn’t get approval to take the GWP. She said, “Kate told her ‘no.’”

Summary of the Complainant’s Case:

63. It is the complainant’s case that a disciplinary investigation arose in retaliation for her raising a protected disclosure concerning workplace safety, a complaint regarding underpayment of her wages and her claim that the respondent failed to implement a 2% pay increase. She believes that the alleged misconduct for which she was dismissed was “a pretext and that the operative cause of dismissal was retaliatory.”
64. As the incidents that resulted in the complainant’s dismissal occurred on March 2nd and 7th 2025, she believes that it is implausible that the respondent would permit her to continue in employment for two months, take no immediate investigative steps and notify her of their concerns. The complainant submits that the protected disclosure and wage complaints were “at a minimum, a materially influencing factor in the decision to dismiss” and that this automatically means that her dismissal was unfair.

Evidence of the Complainant:

65. The complainant said that she believes that her dismissal is disproportionate and outside the range of reasonable responses to the offence. She said that the incident was of “minimal seriousness” and that the products were of no material value.  She said that there was no loss or damage to the company.  She claimed not to be motivated by personal gain or malice.  She said that her actions were not gross misconduct and that there was no need to dismiss her.  She claimed that any reasonable employer would have considered her conduct as a “minor lapse.”  She said that she could have been given a warning and that the options were not properly weighed before the decision to dismiss her was reached.  She objected to the use of CCTV and she argued that the decision to dismiss her was outside the reasonable response of an employer. 

Cross-examining of the Complainant

66. Ms Guinness asked the complainant what was the context and purpose of her actions on March 2nd. She replied that she took the gift and that she admitted that she took it.  She said however, that it was taken with the consent of the duty manager.  She said that she can’t remember who the duty manager was and she didn’t name the duty manager in any of her correspondence.
67. The complainant agreed with Ms Guinness when she asked the complainant if she heard the evidence of Mr Laverty when he said that products may only be taken with his permission. She repeated that she couldn’t remember the name of the duty manager.
68. When Ms Guinness asked the complainant if she expected me, as the adjudicator in this matter, to believe that she asked an unnamed duty manager if she could take the GWP, she replied that “there are a lot of unwritten rules.” She said that she wasn’t aware that the GWP had value.
69. In response to Ms Guinness asking the complainant if she thinks that the company had reasonable grounds for thinking that she did something dishonest, the complainant replied that she can’t remember. She said that she doesn’t usually contact anyone on Saturdays or Sundays and she wouldn’t want anyone to contact her at the weekends.
70. The complainant said that Ms Tobin gave her an “unclear reason” when she asked if she could have the GWP. When Ms Guinness asked the complainant if Ms Tobin’s “no” was unclear, she replied, “For me it was unclear.”  She said that she wasn’t sure about the policy.
71. Ms Guinness asked the complainant what she did to check if she could take the GWP. The complainant replied, “A reasonable person would ask.”  She agreed with Ms Guinness that she understands the difference between right and wrong.  Ms Guinness said that, if her manager said “no,” it must be wrong for her to take it.  The complainant replied that she understood.
72. Ms Guinness asked the complainant if she accepted that, if she took the item, that the company thought that she did something dishonest. The complainant replied that she wasn’t sure.
73. Ms Guinness reminded the complainant that she was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting and she had an opportunity to review the CCTV. She replied that she didn’t attend the disciplinary meeting because she was sick.  She said that she was sick when she was given an opportunity to provide a written submission and to appeal against her dismissal.  She said that she remembers writing to the manager who was due to hear her appeal on July 3rd 2025.  In that email, the complainant asked the company not to consider her appeal on the ground of work-related stress.  The complainant replied that she was in a frail state of mind at the time.  Ms Guinness reminded the complainant that, in her email of July 3rd, she said that the “sole legal ground” of her appeal was procedural unfairness” due to the alleged withholding of information.  The complainant replied that she made a bad judgement at the time due to a frail state of mind.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Legal Framework

74. Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) provides that:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

A dismissal is therefore presumed to be unfair, until the employer establishes that there were substantial grounds justifying it. 

75. Section 6(4)(b) of the Act provides that,

“…the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from …the conduct of the employee.”

The legislation therefore recognises the right of an employer to dismiss an employee for conduct that, considered by another reasonable employer in similar circumstances, is unacceptable or unreasonable.  It is the respondent’s case that the complainant was dismissed because, on March 2nd and 7th 2025, without the permission of the account manager, or any manager, she removed products from the Boots store in Liffey Valley where she was employed.  In a letter dated June 10th 2025, the manager who conducted the disciplinary investigation concluded that the complainant’s actions amounted to gross misconduct.

76. In tandem with the reasonableness of the decision to dismiss an employee, the Act also requires an employer to have regard to fair procedures. Section 6(7) addresses this issue:

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so -

to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act.

77. Section 14(1) refers to the obligation on an employer to provide an employee with a written copy of the procedure that will be used “before and for the purpose of dismissing the employee.” A copy of the respondent’s disciplinary procedure was issued to the complainant when she commenced in her role in July 2016, and re-issued on May 6th 2025, when she was invited to a disciplinary meeting.  Section 7(2)(d) of the Act is a reference to the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures which is given legal effect in Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000.

Was the Decision to Dismiss Reasonable and in Proportion to the Conduct?

78. In her submission for the respondent, Ms Guinness referred to the High Court decision in TheGovernor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Reilly[1]. In his judgement in that case, considering the role of a court in determining if a dismissal was unfair, Mr Justice Noonan stated that,

“…the onus is on an employer to establish substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the matters specified in Section 6(4), which includes the conduct of the employee or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.  Section 6(7) makes clear that the Court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct in relation to the dismissal.  That is however, not to say that the Court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgement as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer.  The question is rather, whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned – see Royal Bank of Scotland -v- Lindsay UD EAT/0506/09/DM.

79. It is not for me therefore, as the adjudicator in this matter, to consider if the complainant should have been dismissed, but to ask if it was reasonably open to her employer to make the decision it made, or if could they have made a different decision and applied a lesser sanction. Based on the evidence presented to me, I must consider if the decision of the respondent was that of “a reasonable employer in those circumstances in that line of business.”[2]
80. It seems to me that a fundamental tenet of the contract between a retailer and a sales assistant is trust. The retailer is entitled to expect their employee to treat the products on sale and for gifts or samples as not for taking.  This is the basis of the retailer-employee relationship, without which, the business cannot survive.  Although the complainant argued that the products she took were, in her view, “of no material value,” they were of value to her employer and they had a purpose in the development of a relationship with the customer.  More importantly however, is the value that an employer places on an employee to behave honestly and not to steal.
81. The complainant did the right thing when, on March 2nd 2025, she asked her manager if she could have a particular gift item that goes with 100ml of fragrance. When she took the item, having been told not to, she acted dishonestly and it is my view that most employers in those circumstances would have dismissed her.  When it was discovered that she took sample products from a different counter on March 7th, it was entirely reasonable to dismiss her.

Was the Process Fair?

82. The complainant’s case that the procedure that ended with her dismissal was unfair is not related to some inherent breach of the disciplinary procedure. She was at all times invited to respond to the allegation of dishonesty.  She was advised that she could be represented.  She decided not to attend the disciplinary hearing and she was presented with the notes of the meeting held in her absence and she had an opportunity to respond.  She attended the appeal hearing on July 2nd and she decided not to bring someone with her.
83. From a procedural perspective, the complainant argued that, when Ms Tobin discovered that the GWP was missing on March 4th, she should have been suspended. Although she did not articulate this at the hearing, I think the point she wanted to make is that her conduct must not have been all that serious if she was permitted to remain in employment until her dismissal on June 10th.  I accept that three months is a long time to investigate something that wasn’t particularly complicated.  The evidence was clear and showed the complainant removing products on two separate occasions.  As Boots was the controller of the CCTV footage, there was a third party involved and the respondent’s area manager had to make arrangements to view the footage.  For reasons that were not explained, that didn’t happen until four weeks after the event.  Again, for reasons that were not explained, four weeks later, on May 6th, the complainant was invited to attend the disciplinary meeting.
84. It is regrettable that it took so long to address the complainant’s conduct; however, I find that no unfairness arises from this. She was informed on May 6th that a disciplinary process had been initiated and a decision was reached four weeks later.  The fact that she wasn’t suspended when she was seen on CCTV taking the products is not a reflection, one way or another, of the seriousness of her actions.  Having been observed taking products without permission, it is reasonable to assume that she was more closely supervised afterwards.
85. I do not accept the complainant’s case that she was dismissed because she raised a concern about a health and safety matter and a privacy issue. On September 13th 2024, she had refused to attend a meeting with her manager to discuss her absence.  By way of explanation, she said that her manager didn’t have the legal authority and competence to conduct such a meeting and because of concerns about her privacy.  This is set out in an email to the HR business partner, Ms Robbie on May 12th 2025.  A few days earlier, on May 6th, the complainant had been requested to attend a disciplinary meeting to investigate the removal of products from the store on March 2nd and 7th. 
86. In her submission, the complainant referred to a query she sent to the HR department on April 22nd 2025 and the shortfall in her wages in 2024 of €854. The HR business partner discovered that the complainant was correct and that there had indeed been a shortfall in her wages of that amount.  She also identified small shortages in her commission for January and February 2025.  The connection by the complainant of this payroll issue, and her concern about the absence policy is, in my view, an effort on her part to distract from her conduct.  She has failed to establish any connection between these two matters and the fact of her dismissal.
87. Finally, in relation to procedural fairness, the complainant objected to the use of CCTV as part of the disciplinary investigation. A copy of the respondent’s CCTV policy was issued to her as part of its “People Guide” or employee handbook.  I note that one of the purposes of the CCTV is,

“Identification of unauthorised actions or unsafe working practices that might result in disciplinary proceedings being instituted against employees and to assist in providing relevant evidence.”

I am satisfied that the CCTV footage was used in accordance with this stated purpose and that it enabled the respondent to be absolutely certain of the facts before making a decision to dismiss the complainant.

Conclusion

88. I am satisfied that the employer in this case has taken all the facts into consideration, including what Mr Justice Flood referred to as the “gravity of the complaint and the effect of dismissal” on the complainant. Several legal precedents exist that demonstrate the importance of the relationship of trust between an employee and their employer, and specifically, the relationship that I’ve already mentioned between a retailer and their staff.  The former Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) considered a similar misconduct issue in 2013 in its determination in Shane Connolly v Tesco Ireland Limited[3].  Mr Connolly had been employed by Tesco for 17 years and he was dismissed following an investigation into the theft of a cookery book from the store where he worked.  Similar to the investigation into the complainant’s conduct, CCTV was used to help to identify what had occurred.  Also, like the complainant, Mr Connolly argued that, in view of his long service and the low value of the item he took, his dismissal was disproportionate.  The Tribunal disagreed and held that “an employer is entitled to repose trust in his employees.”
89. In its determination in the case of Valerie Byrne v Marks & Spencer (Ireland) Limited[4], the EAT considered the dismissal of Ms Byrne for taking a hot drink from the café the store. Accepting that the dismissal of Ms Byrne was “undeniably harsh,” the chairman remarked as follows:

“There can be no doubt that the policy within this company is that there is to be no toleration of theft, no matter what form and no matter what its value.”

Regardless of the minimal value of the item taken, the Tribunal concluded that Marks and Spencer was entitled to dismiss Ms Byrne.  Considering the evidence presented to me at the hearing of this complaint, and, relying on these authorities, it is my view that, if the complainant had been working for any other employer, she would have been dismissed.  I have reached the conclusion therefore, that her dismissal was not unfair. 

CA-00073450-003:

Complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

90. On September 13th 2024, the complainant said that she raised a grievance and complained that the company’s HR practices were unsafe. In her submission dated March 18th 2026, she said that she raised concerns about,

• The improper application and implementation of the respondent’s procedures for sickness absence;
• Health and safety matters
• Breaches of data protection;
• HR practices.

She said that the issues she raised highlighted potential risks to employee welfare and procedural fairness.  She said that these matters constitute protected acts within the meaning of s.27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act.  She claims that,

“Any adverse action taken against myself in response to raising these concerns constitutes penalisation under the (Safety, Health and Welfare at Work) Act.”

91. On September 13th 2024, the complainant said that she was invited to attend an absence investigation meeting and she declined because she questioned the authority of the counter manager who intended to host the meeting and she was concerned about her privacy and data protection. She said that she raised concerns about the confidentiality of health-related discussions. 
92. On March 1st 2025, the complainant said that she became aware that management and HR were discussing her sickness absence. She said that she continued to raise concerns about the application of the respondent’s sickness absence procedures and the protection of health information.  She complained about the lack of a “formal HR-led process.”  She claimed that these actions “resulted in ongoing disputes with management and had a significant negative impact on my working conditions and well-being.”
93. When I asked her how she was penalised, the complainant said that she was dismissed and denied advancement and remuneration because she made a complaint about the company’s sickness absence policy.

Findings and Conclusions:

94. On May 6th 2025, the complainant was invited to attend a disciplinary meeting. On May 12th, she raised a formal grievance in relation to,

“…the application /protocol /implementation of LVMH Sickness Absence Policy – Retail and Privacy and Personal Data Protection Issues.”

In her grievance submission, she claimed that the counter manager hasn’t got authority and competence to carry out return to work meetings and that this is the reason she declined to attend a meeting eight months previously in September 2024.

95. It is my view that this grievance is not a complaint about a breach of a health and safety regulation. I’ve already stated my opinion that it appears to be an attempt to distract the respondent from its investigation into the complainant’s conduct on March 2nd and 7th 2025.  I am satisfied that the submission of this grievance was not connected to the respondent’s decision to dismiss the complainant and that the decision-maker, in this case, Ms Angela McElroy, was not influenced by the submission of this grievance, which was handled by a different member of the HR team.  The evidence has shown that the decision to dismiss was in accordance with the provision at s.6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act that provides that the dismissal of an employee for reasons related to misconduct may not be unfair.

CA-00073450-004:

Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

96. In her evidence, the complainant said that, on April 18th 2024, she received confirmation that her salary would be increased to €16,321.85. In April 2025, when she checked the amount that she was paid for the previous 12 months, she discovered that there was a shortfall of €854.00 between what she had been paid and what she should have been paid.  She also complained that her commission pay for January and February 2025 were incorrect.
97. This complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act concerns the complainant’s claim that she wasn’t provided with information regarding changes in her salary. She claimed also that her wages were reduced as a penalisation for raising a complaint about her wages in September 2024.

Cross-examining of the Complainant

98. Ms Guinness referred to an email that the complainant sent to three members of the HR department on April 22nd 2025. She complained about a shortfall in her wages following an increase that was applied to her salary in 2024.
99. Ms Guinness asked how there has been a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act if the complainant is claiming that she was informed about the increase. The complainant said that she agrees that she received communication about her wages, but, at the time, she said that she believed that a wrongdoing was taking place.

Findings and Conclusions:

100. The documents submitted by the respondent show that, in response to her query about her pay on April 22nd 2025, the HR business partner, Ms Robbie, replied on May 2nd and sent her a copy of her annual salary review letters for 2024 and 2025. In her email, Ms Robbie explained that some confusion had arisen with commission payments due to the calculation of commission in sterling pounds.  The complainant was owed €843.33 in respect of a salary shortfall and €21.82 in respect of a shortfall in her January and February 2025 commission.  These payments were processed in the May 2025 payroll run.
101. I am satisfied that there is no basis to the complainant’s claim that she was not provided with written confirmation of changes to her salary. I find that she has raised no evidence that demonstrates that she was penalised for raising a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and her complaint concerning penalisation under this Act is not upheld.

Decision:

102. Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

CA-00073450-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

I have concluded that the decision of the respondent to dismiss the complainant in this case was reasonable and proportionate and I also find that no unfairness arose from the procedure that ended with her dismissal.  On this basis, I have decided that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.

103. Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00073450-003:  Complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005

I decide that there is no merit to the complainant’s claim that she was penalised by being dismissed, because she raised a grievance about health and safety matters and I decide therefore, that this complaint is not well founded.

104. CA-00073450-004: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The complainant’s case that she was not provided with written confirmation of changes in salary is without substance and I decide therefore, that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   29/05/26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

[1] Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241

[2] Bunyan v United Dominions Trust (Ireland) Limited, [1982] IRLM 404

[3] Shane Connolly v Tesco Ireland Limited, UD 1394/2011

[4] Valerie Byrne v Marks & Spencer (Ireland) Limited, UD 826/2013