nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Get caught stealing chips - Win €8000 !!!

Lapin

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dunnes-has-to-pay-worker-8000-after-spy-camera-catches-her-eating-deli-food-30209450.html

A DUNNES Stores worker who was fired after admitting to eating deli food without paying has been awarded €8,000 by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Karen Deegan had worked in the Knocknacarra, Galway, branch for four years prior to losing her job in October 2011.

She was one of up to nine employees to lose their jobs over eating unpaid-for food.

The tribunal heard the cameras were installed unbeknownst to staff after an anonymous call informed the head office that staff were consuming food.

Did the staff really think it was acceptable to help themselves to free food?
What would they think if the customers walked out without paying for it?

I see nothing wrong with Dunnes installing a camera. If the staff were honest and doing what they were being paid to do, they'd still have a job.

There is something wrong when someone wins €8000 in compensation for her own dishonesty.

Claims that "Dunnes Stores has very serious questions to answer on its behaviour of installing cameras to place its workers on constant surveillance without them knowing about it." are a load of bollox.

This was the only way Dunnes could prove their staff were tea leafs.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mikehunts

Sure Dunnes hadn't a chance of winning this, they are called EAT (Employment Appeals Tribunal) after all. Eat what ya like.

FTA69

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yep and dunnes should pursue this woman through the courts for theft. She broke the law too.

Why is it so important to you that a low-paid woman who ate a few chips be dragged through the courts by one of the wealthiest companies in Ireland?

Typical nonsense we often see in Ireland, people siding with the powerful.

Lapin

Valetta wrote: »

As for taking a few chips, get over it.

If Dunnes didn't break the law, they would have nothing to fear.

How much 'a few chips' goujons and whatever other food that the thief admitted to stealing?

Say it ammounted to €4 a day.

That's €20 a week.

€1000 a year.

Or €4000 over the four years she was employed there.

If the other eight employees dismissed for the same thing over the same period that is a potential €36,000 lost in one branch alone.

But that's ok because it's just 'a few chips'.

Guy:Incognito

FTA69 wrote: »

Why is it so important to you that a low-paid woman who ate a few chips be dragged through the courts by one of the wealthiest companies in Ireland?

Typical nonsense we often see in Ireland, people siding with the powerful.

Why is it so important to you that people be allowed steal from their employers? Her wage and what she stole is irrelevant.

Lapin

FTA69 wrote: »

Why is it so important to you that a low-paid woman who ate a few chips be dragged through the courts by one of the wealthiest companies in Ireland?

Typical nonsense we often see in Ireland, people siding with the powerful.

Typical nonsense is thinking that we don't end up paying more for our goods and services as a result of the theft.

Valetta

Lapin wrote: »

How much 'a few chips' goujons and whatever other food that the thief admitted to stealing?

Say it ammounted to €4 a day.

That's €20 a week.

€1000 a year.

Or €4000 over the four years she was employed there.

If the other eight employees dismissed for the same thing over the same period that is a potential €36,000 lost in one branch alone.

But that's ok because it's just 'a few chips'.

I was conflating your "get over it" comment about one party breaking the law, whilst advocating that the other party should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Valetta

Lapin wrote: »

Typical nonsense is thinking that we don't end up paying more for our goods and services as a result of the theft.

And now we will pay even more as a result of Dunnes flouting the law.

Guy:Incognito

jacksie66 wrote: »

She's probably a hard working woman who just nibbled a chip or 2. Get off your high horses lads will ye FFS..

Seeing as we're guessing, I'll put it forward that she was a lazy cow that stood around talking to her mates all day that they were watching for ages to find an excuse to get rid of.

She didn't just nibble a chip or too, why do you feel the need to play it down if the truth is so trivial?9 people didn't get sacked because she "nibbled a chip or two"

Guy:Incognito

jacksie66 wrote: »

So by people's logic here on boards a plumber who takes a few fittings home with him or a carpenter who takes a few nails home with him should be arrested and locked up for theft. She's probably a hard working woman who just nibbled a chip or 2. Get off your high horses lads will ye FFS..

If you were paying 2 or 3 quid each for the couple of fittings the plumber took home every day I doubt youd feel the same. A couple of grands worth of fittings a year isn't a small amount. Maybe a small company working of tight margins should just suck it up and accept that employees steal, sure that's life.

Tokyo

Lapin wrote: »

Typical nonsense is thinking that we don't end up paying more for our goods and services as a result of the theft.

Actually typical nonsense would be assuming that you're simply paying the value of the food you're being served, and not covering the costs of the percentage of food chucked in the bin at the end of the day, all in the name of convenience.

Nobody claimed that the woman got off scot free while the big corporation got held bang to rights. The employee admitted eating food, the EAT stated that "it acknowledges the seriousness of the issue and the fact that the claimant admitted taking and eating the food". She lost her job over this, and was also deemed two-thirds responsible for her dismissal, otherwise she'd have been awarded more.

Dunnes were fined for not following correct disciplinary procedure, and for settign up CCTV to montor employee conduct without informing the employeess of the purpose of said cameras - it couldn't be put any clearer in the data protection act if they tried:

If the identity of the data controller and the usual purpose for processing - security - is obvious, all that need be placed on the sign is a statement that CCTV is in operation as well as a contact (such as a phone number) for persons wishing to discuss this processing. This contact can be for either the security company operating the cameras or the owner of the premises.
If the purpose or purposes is not obvious, there is a duty on the data controller to make this clear. A CCTV camera in a premises is often assumed to be used for security purposes. Use for monitoring staff performance or conduct is not an obvious purpose and staff must be informed before any data are recorded for this purpose. Similarly, if the purpose of CCTV is also for health and safety reasons, this should be clearly stated and made known.

I'm not even sure why this is an issue to be honest. Everyone jumping up and down labeling her a scumbag is protected by the same rights, and would be shouting out loud themselves if they were chucked out of their jobs tomorrow morning without due procedure being followed.

Lapin

mike_ie wrote: »

I'm not even sure why this is an issue to be honest. Everyone jumping up and down labeling her a scumbag is protected by the same rights, and would be shouting out loud themselves if they were chucked out of their jobs tomorrow morning without due procedure being followed.

I woildn't give them a reason to chuck me out of my job by stealing from them in the first place.

Didn't call her a scumbag either.

Cantremember

Procedures exist for a purpose. We can't complain about only one element of society breaking the law, it applies to all.
The problem of course is that the message this case sends is that you can't actually take steps to catch crime without warning everyone of the exact steps you are taking to catch crime. Which means the law should be changed.

JustAddWater

jacksie66 wrote: »

So by people's logic here on boards a plumber who takes a few fittings home with him or a carpenter who takes a few nails home with him should be arrested and locked up for theft. She's probably a hard working woman who just nibbled a chip or 2. Get off your high horses lads will ye FFS..

There was so much theft going on that cameras were installed. That's hardly a nibble on a chip or 2. It must have been a big problem over a long period

suicide_circus

FTA69 wrote: »

Why is it so important to you that a low-paid woman who ate a few chips be dragged through the courts by one of the wealthiest companies in Ireland?

Typical nonsense we often see in Ireland, people siding with the powerful.

Because theft like this impacts us all. Retailers have to factor it into the prices that you pay at the till. Insurers factor it in to the premiums we pay. You are really trying to defend the indefensible in your quest to justify the theft becuase it's against a "corperation, man"

upstairs for coffee

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What else is it ok to steal? Some socks? a few pairs of traksuit bottoms? cigarettes?

Have you ever run a red light? Does that make you a scumbag?

osarusan

mike_ie wrote: »

Nobody claimed that the woman got off scot free while the big corporation got held bang to rights. The employee admitted eating food, the EAT stated that "it acknowledges the seriousness of the issue and the fact that the claimant admitted taking and eating the food". She lost her job over this, and was also deemed two-thirds responsible for her dismissal, otherwise she'd have been awarded more.

Dunnes were fined for not following correct disciplinary procedure, and for settign up CCTV to montor employee conduct without informing the employeess of the purpose of said cameras - it couldn't be put any clearer in the data protection act if they tried.

This really should be the end of the thread.

[Deleted User]

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

And chicken goujons and other food according to the article, it all adds up.
Deli food is not cheap, lets say if she was consuming €4 of food per day over a year that would not long be adding up.

Just like office people "steal" from their employers all the time.

I hope everyone replying calling her is a scumbag is unemployed/self employed. Browsing boards/facebook/personal emails is "stealing" your employers time you know.

JustAddWater wrote: »

There was so much theft going on that cameras were installed. That's hardly a nibble on a chip or 2. It must have been a big problem over a long period

I take it you've never worked for an over zealous employer before? I would doubt that it was such a huge problem that proper procedure couldn't have been followed and if it was such a huge problem, proper procedure SHOULD definitely have been followed.

Any word on the person who signed off on spying on the staff getting the sack?

Guy:Incognito

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Have you ever run a red light? Does that make you a scumbag?

Is there a bigger red light that I would be called a scumbag for running?

The crux of this is that its apparently ok to steal from your employer as long as its cheap stuff, even if you steal thousands worth over a long time, but stealing one item valued at a tenner is not the same and wrong.

Sam Kade

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Have you ever run a red light? Does that make you a scumbag?

What exactly is a scumbag?

JillyQ

Lapin wrote: »

How much 'a few chips' goujons and whatever other food that the thief admitted to stealing?

Say it ammounted to €4 a day.

That's €20 a week.

€1000 a year.

Or €4000 over the four years she was employed there.

If the other eight employees dismissed for the same thing over the same period that is a potential €36,000 lost in one branch alone.

But that's ok because it's just 'a few chips'.

You are absolutely dead right. Attached is the first link that i found on the cost of shoplifting in Ireland and present.
http://www.independent.ie/business/small-business/shoplifting-soars-as-2m-a-day-stolen-over-christmas-isme-warns-system-a-joke-29973482.html

also here is a europe wide one from the centre for retail research

http://www.retailresearch.org/grtb_currentsurvey.php

Sam Kade

Lapin wrote: »

How much 'a few chips' goujons and whatever other food that the thief admitted to stealing?

Say it ammounted to €4 a day.

That's €20 a week.

€1000 a year.

Or €4000 over the four years she was employed there.

If the other eight employees dismissed for the same thing over the same period that is a potential €36,000 lost in one branch alone.

But that's ok because it's just 'a few chips'.

Then the shop up their prices for the loss and the customer ends up paying the tab.

Lapin

Sam Kade wrote: »

Then the shop up their prices for the loss and the customer ends up paying the tab.

Exactly.

It might be just 'a few chips' in some people's minds but they're not free.

When someone steals them, the rest of us end up paying for them.

osarusan

Lapin wrote: »

When someone steals them, the rest of us end up paying for them.

And when Dunnes break the law by installing cameras like this and have to fork out a fine, the rest of us end up paying for it.

Where's the outrage?

Rocket19

Lol at people dramatically calling her "the thief".
Seriously, people surely must live very sheltered lives if the girl manning the deli counter taking a few chips and goujons is being described as a "scumbag"!

I work in a restaurant, and I find this funny because my manager (the owner) is always trying to feed me! Constantly trying to get me to take food home with me, and try stuff in the kitchen. The chefs are the same, always pushing food lol.

I thought most food places would be like this? I know in my case, I work in a restaurant, so maybe there's a different vibe, but most of my friends who work part-time in cafés, etc, are the same. There is no problem with them taking food while they are working or over their break.

Verrrry mean spirited people :P

krudler

FTA69 wrote: »

I'd hardly say that a low-paid woman eating a few chicken goujons while working for a massively profitable company is a "scumbag" either. It's not as if she was taking a machete to newborn kittens.

Where do you think the chicken goujouns come from

Doom

Delighted, Dunnes are bottom of the barrel when its comes to respect for employees.

Lapin

osarusan wrote: »

And when Dunnes break the law by installing cameras like this and have to fork out a fine, the rest of us end up paying for it.

Where's the outrage?

No need for outrage.

Dunne's actions ultimately saved them (and in turn their customers) money in the long term.

Without the cameras the staff would still be munching their way through thousands of euro worth of chips every year.

ScumLord

I can see why the shop wanted to install the cameras in secret. If they went down the legal route they would be telling the staff they know they're stealing and now they're monitoring, but I'm sure most people know a camera isn't going to be monitored and is usually used retrospectively. Even with cameras in place I'm sure the management felt that unless someone is watching the employees (another employee that may not rat out his colleagues) the employees can continue stealing and just be more sneaky about it.

By doing it in secret they can spend one evening catching the employees that are stealing. I'm sure they wanted to get rid of the staff that were stealing rather than just warn them that management knows it's happening.

monkeysnapper

I'm a scum bag so , I worked in the deli in dunnes and eat food , hell one night we got a frozen pizza from freezers on shop floor and cooked it in cuisine de France ovens, I got a lad on floor to get me a can of coke as well .

I went in back many times to catch deli manager tucking into chicken nuggets and wedges . It was rife at that time .

The textiles store manager was caught leaving one day with a load of stuff he said was going to a charity auction . O that was ok then .