Get caught stealing chips - Win €8000 !!!

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

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"

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.

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"

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.

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.

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

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

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.