Woman steals wine, gets €4000 from courts

jme2010

https://www.thejournal.ie/tesco-worker-fired-bottle-of-wine-4422415-Jan2019/

The country is a joke.



Tesco worker fired after removing bottle of wine worth less than €20 from store

THE IRISH ARM of retail giant Tesco sacked a worker after she admitted taking a bottle of wine valued at less than €20 out of a store and not paying for it.

The retail worker was dismissed by Tesco Ireland on 29 March 2016 arising from an incident on 13 January 2016 when she was intercepted by a security officer after she left the store at the end of her shift.

The woman had a bottle of wine in her bag she had not paid for, and maintained that she had forgotten to pay for the wine.

The retail worker has successfully sued for unfair dismissal at the Labour Court after the court found that the decision to dismiss her “was tainted with procedural unfairness”.

However, the Labour Court found that the woman contributed substantially to her own dismissal.

The Labour Court stated that the woman contributing a significant degree to her dismissal has been taken into account in measuring the quantum of compensation that should be awarded and has ordered Tesco Ireland to pay her €4,000.

The Labour Court ruling upholds an earlier ruling made by an Adjudication Officer at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) which Tesco Ireland had appealed.

In her evidence, the retail worker said that at around 5.45pm on 13 January 2016 she left her work station to select some items of personal shopping including two bottles of wine as she was due to finish her shift at 6pm.

The woman stated that in the course of that activity she encountered an acquaintance who had had a bereavement and whose mother was unwell. She said that she was upset by the encounter.

The woman stated that she put one of the bottles of wine in her bag as she did not want to drop it.

The security guard then intercepted her after she left the store and she was escorted to an office where a duty manager attended and suspended her until further notice.

The retail worker stated that she had made a mistake concerning the bottle of wine as a result of the upset that she had experienced when she met an acquaintance.

In its submission, Tesco stated that CCTV footage clearly showed the retail worker removing a bottle of wine from the store without paying and that the footage showed no evidence of upset on the part of the woman following her conversation with an acquaintance in the store.

The Tesco-employed security guard told the Labour Court hearing that he took the decision not to call the Gardaí because the bottle concerned had a value of less than €20.

Tesco dismissed the woman for breach of its Honesty policy and its Staff Purchase policy and because the bond of trust between employee and employer had broken down.

In its findings, the Labour Court noted that at no stage of the investigative or disciplinary process was the woman supplied with a copy of Tesco’s Honesty or Staff Purchase policies which she was contended to have breached.

sk8erboii

Surely a liberal plot to oppress Catholics

Fann Linn

Employers should get their disciplinary procedures in order and they'd have no problem getting a justifiable sacking.

Allinall

jme2010 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/tesco-worker-fired-bottle-of-wine-4422415-Jan2019/

The country is a joke.




Tesco worker fired after removing bottle of wine worth less than €20 from store

At what point was it established that she stole the wine?

Very serious accusation you’re making there.

PuppyMcPupFace

sk8erboii wrote: »

Surely a liberal plot to oppress Catholics

Ffs let it go dude eh ?

jme2010

Allinall wrote: »

At what point was it established that she stole the wine?

Very serious accusation you’re making there.

What?

In its submission, Tesco stated that CCTV footage clearly showed the retail worker removing a bottle of wine from the store without paying and that the footage showed no evidence of upset on the part of the woman following her conversation with an acquaintance in the store.

For a crime to have been committed she had to have intentionally not paid for it, fully aware she was stealing it deliberately. The court didn't believe that to be the case, and that she was unfairly dismissed. Stranger things have happened. Presumably the courts had more detail than we do.

kippy

Tesco didn't follow their own procedures prior to dealing with this by the looks of things.
Kinda basic training mistake by them and am surprised they hadn't training records to back up their policies.

Allinall

jme2010 wrote: »

What?

Nothing there about stealing.

Even Tesco didn’t accuse her of stealing.

Maybe you should rethink your thread title?

Fann Linn

kippy wrote: »

Tesco didn't follow their own procedures prior to dealing with this by the looks of things.
Kinda basic training mistake by them and am surprised they hadn't training records to back up their policies.

Exactly. A major multinational with TU agreements should be well able to deal with a case like this. Very sloppy by HR at this branch.

DontThankMe

The WRC believed her version of events in which she stated that she forgot to pay for it rather than steal it and was therefore due compensation for her unfair dismissal as a result of her employers actions.

BeardySi

The Labour Court stated that the woman contributing a significant degree to her dismissal has been taken into account in measuring the quantum of compensation that should be awarded and has ordered Tesco Ireland to pay her €4,000.

The Labour Court isn't there to decide on theft, they clearly felt that there had been grounds for dismissal but as Tesco seemingly made a ****e of it procedurally, technically dismissing her wrongly, they made an award to the woman.

A fcukup on Tesco's part rather than anything else...

The Tetrarch

People can be forgetful.
I once paid for my groceries, and at the last second realised that I had a newspaper under by arm that I forgot to get scanned by the cashier.

Ineedaname

Smart thing would have been just to give her the option to pay the €20 and be done.

Would have saved an awful lot of hassle all round.

Sir Oxman

Yep, nothing to see here at all
Disciplinary procedures were not followed hence the compensation.

Whether she stole it or forgot to pay for it, who knows

Plumbthedepths

Company failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures fined 4000 euro as an alternative headline.

Reckless Abandonment

Fann Linn wrote: »

Employers should get their disciplinary procedures in order and they'd have no problem getting a justifiable sacking.

Procedures me hole.
.do people/labour court really think employers spend their days thinking up ways to fire staff or mess them about.
I'm 20 years in retail and spend a huge amount of time and effort keeping the good ones and trying to retrain the the bad ones
It's gone completely impossible to get rid of bad staff. And let's face it some people are just bad end of.

blackwhite

DontThankMe wrote: »

The WRC believed her version of events in which she stated that she forgot to pay for it rather than steal it and was therefore due compensation for her unfair dismissal as a result of her employers actions.

The WRC didn’t believe her version of events - they even reduced the award to her because they felt she had “significantly contributed” to her own dismissal.

The only reason they awarded anything to her was that Tesco failed to prove that they had folllowed their own policies correctly when sacking her. If they’d followed the procedures properly and still given her the boot then she likely wouldn’t have been awarded anything

Fann Linn

Reckless Abandonment wrote: »

Procedures me hole.
.do people/labour court really think employers spend their days thinking up ways to fire staff or mess them about.
I'm 20 years in retail and spend a huge amount of time and effort keeping the good ones and trying to retrain the the bad ones
It's gone completely impossible to get rid of bad staff. And let's face it some people are just bad end of.

This is Tesco, not you, a billion £ company.
No excuses.

PhoenixParker

DontThankMe wrote: »

The WRC believed her version of events in which she stated that she forgot to pay for it rather than steal it and was therefore due compensation for her unfair dismissal as a result of her employers actions.

That's not my reading of it.

TESCO didn't follow their and the legally required full and proper procedure to dismiss her, so the court is awarding the fired employee damages.

She would have been awarded far more if the court had bdlueved Tesco fired her completely without cause.

Collie D

Reckless Abandonment wrote: »

do people/labour court really think employers spend their days thinking up ways to fire staff or mess them about.

It’s a mystery to the majority of people what HR departments actually do.

the_pen_turner

what stood out to me is that she spent the last 15min of her shift doing her personal shoping and talking to friends.

Reckless Abandonment

Fann Linn wrote: »

This is Tesco, not you, a billion £ company.
No excuses.

Fair enough. But retail 101 don't walk out with stock in your bag. Even Tesco are under pressure to find and keep staff.

RacoonQueen

Collie D wrote: »

It’s a mystery to the majority of people what HR departments actually do.

Ask the Chief People Officers who run them

Fann Linn

Reckless Abandonment wrote: »

Fair enough. But retail 101 don't walk out with stock in your bag. Even Tesco are under pressure to find and keep staff.

I agree. I know I'm not supposed to hit or bully anyone at work. I get a 'bullying policy' from my boss, sign it and return. Procedure followed.

Admittedly it may be difficult in small business or retail operation, but as another poster said, in a large HR dept, what do they do?

cdeb

PhoenixParker wrote: »

She would have been awarded far more if the court had bdlueved Tesco fired her completely without cause.

That's what jumped out at me too. 4k is not a lot for wrongful dismissal. Two months' wages maybe?

They maybe called her in and sacked her on the spot, for which they deserve to be sued.

Thread title would then read "Woman gets sacked on the spot with no due process; gets 4k", which is much different

Dakota Dan

Allinall wrote: »

Nothing there about stealing.

Even Tesco didn’t accuse her of stealing.

Maybe you should rethink your thread title?

Why did they sack her?

The Rape of Lucretia

Fann Linn wrote: »

Employers should get their disciplinary procedures in order and they'd have no problem getting a justifiable sacking.

They have given up trying to comply with the procedures, and quite rightly. They are simply too convoluted, and impossible to implement according to the letter of the law. Its easier not to waste time trying to do the impossible - so better to just sack, and then just accept whatever compensation is awarded. Whatever, it is cheaper than the management time and effort trying to do it by the book.

suicide_circus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what stood out to me is that she spent the last 15min of her shift doing her personal shoping and talking to friends.

and robbing. 4 grand is cheap to have her off the books

Fann Linn

suicide_circus wrote: »

and robbing. 4 grand is cheap to have her off the books

If they did it right it would have cost them nada.

The Rape of Lucretia

Fann Linn wrote: »

If they did it right it would have cost them nada.

No. "Right" is far too time consuming. So it costs either way. Its easier just to pay the bill. Its the only way to get rid of bad people these days.

Fann Linn

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No. "Right" is far too time consuming. So it costs either way. Its easier just to pay the bill. Its the only way to get rid of bad people these days.

People can and do win their jobs back.

cdeb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No. "Right" is far too time consuming. So it costs either way. Its easier just to pay the bill. Its the only way to get rid of bad people these days.

They're employing a HR department for a reason. If the case is so clear-cut, it wouldn't take much time to invite the employee to an investigation hearing, then a disciplinary hearing, then give a verdict of dismissal (or a final written warning if you wanted to be nice)

Paddy Cow

Is anyone going to hire her again now that she has a rep for being a litigious thief?

0cp71eyxkb94qf

Candie wrote: »

For a crime to have been committed she had to have intentionally not paid for it, fully aware she was stealing it deliberately. The court didn't believe that to be the case, and that she was unfairly dismissed. Stranger things have happened. Presumably the courts had more detail than we do.

Jesus Christ. How long does it take you to forget you had put a bottle of wine in your bag from the time of putting it into your bag to getting to the door of the shop? Or is this you defending someone because of their gender again?

Junkyard Tom

Four thousand Euro would buy you a lot of wine.

Paddy Cow

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Is anyone going to hire her again now that she has a rep for being a litigious thief?

I think that's the main thing to take, will it be difficult for her to find another job

Belen Fast Stipulation

Belen Fast Stipulation wrote: »

Jesus Christ. How long does it take you to forget you had put a bottle of wine in your bag from the time of putting it into your bag to getting to the door of the shop? Or is this you defending someone because of their gender again?

Where did I defend her? That's just the reality of the situation. Nothing to do with gender either.

Junkyard Tom

Belen Fast Stipulation wrote: »

Jesus Christ. How long does it take you to forget you had put a bottle of wine in your bag from the time of putting it into your bag to getting to the door of the shop? Or is this you defending someone because of their gender again?

Here's the salient point:

The retail worker has successfully sued for unfair dismissal at the Labour Court after the court found that the decision to dismiss her “was tainted with procedural unfairness”.

She wasn't found innocent - Tesco was found to have not followed procedures that, I presume, are there to protect all workers.

Now pull yourself together, you're a mess.

Atoms for Peace

Because of BS like this, if I had to actually read my employment contract it would be up before I'd get to the end.

Hilly Bill

Candie wrote: »

For a crime to have been committed she had to have intentionally not paid for it, fully aware she was stealing it deliberately. The court didn't believe that to be the case, and that she was unfairly dismissed. Stranger things have happened. Presumably the courts had more detail than we do.

It's always a mistake when caught.

road_high

Why would you put the bottle in your bag in the first place? If you intended paying wouldn’t you go to the checkout, pay for it and then put in the bag?

Maxx355

They should have left her go with the wine. Burn the CCTV footage, and do live obs on her for several days, particularly before she left the store after finishing work, if she was a thief, a second or third offence would turn up and put to bed the " i forgot" argument.

riffmongous

road_high wrote: »

Why would you put the bottle in your bag in the first place? If you intended paying wouldn’t you go to the checkout, pay for it and then put in the bag?

Easier to carry it if you need to pick up a few other things. I've done it a few times when I didn't have a basket and was afraid I might drop one of the other things I was carrying

the_pen_turner

how did she pay for the other stuff without seeing the bottle in the bag

AllForIt

Nothing like free beer.

Shred

road_high wrote: »

Why would you put the bottle in your bag in the first place? If you intended paying wouldn’t you go to the checkout, pay for it and then put in the bag?

And why was she afraid of dropping only one of the two bottles she had?

road_high

riffmongous wrote: »

Easier to carry it if you need to pick up a few other things. I've done it a few times when I didn't have a basket and was afraid I might drop one of the other things I was carrying

Just a grab a basket! I'd hate to put stuff in a bag like that, I'd feel like a thief.

daheff

Ineedaname wrote: »

Smart thing would have been just to give her the option to pay the €20 and be done.

Would have saved an awful lot of hassle all round.

Yeah but then you run the risk of staff "forgetting to pay" until they get caught!

Ineedaname

daheff wrote: »

Yeah but then you run the risk of staff "forgetting to pay" until they get caught!

How many would have to "forget to pay" to add up to €4k?

The problem with theft is it has to be a deliberate act. Taking something out of the store without paying isn't necessarily theft unless you can prove intent. Falsely accusing someone is a great way to find yourself paying out a few grand in compensation.

So yeah given the chance take the option with the least hassle. Not always fair but the fact is some battles you're just not gonna win.

cgcsb

Sacking someone over a matter of €20 is looking to start a revolution. How much money has Bertie stolen at this stage?