Supermacs manager sacked over incidents that cost firm €2.75

jcd5971 · 01-06-2016 03:36PM

Surely taking 2 Euro from a till and throwing it someone is some form of assault is it not?

Coat22 · 01-06-2016 03:38PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

Max is out by 600 your forgetting the plus one week

So assuming she is only on 12.80 a hour it matches what a redundancy would have cost.
If she is on more than that they have saved 4,500
if they paid more than statutory before they have saved a ton load , granted costs on top of that but I would expect the courts to throw the book at such a cynical dismal . I would have expected closer to 50K for this.

Not sure how you come up with a figure of 50k? The max payable by the EAT is 2 years NET salary. So she'd need to be coming out with 500 a week to be awarded that. If she was on that sort of money then she'd have gotten a redundancy payment of 23,400.

There's no way in hell a company that runs 2 chipper shops would be voluntarily paying more than statutory redundancy - some major retailers are not paying more than statutory redundancy to staff being let go.

01-06-2016 03:47PM

jimgoose wrote: »

That kind of carry-on might be alright in Greasy McBollix's in Ballydung, but it is not how business is done in the Grown-Up world. You should see how fast the CEOs I regularly encounter would nuke the site from orbit if the likes of that was going on in their name, however albeit indirectly, franchise or no fuckin' franchise.

Lol. Greasy McBollixs.....Comedy gold.

01-06-2016 03:50PM

heroics wrote: »

You cant be serious.

Whats the point in having a manager let alone a senior manager if they can't deal with simple stuff like this. The total value of the mistakes was 75 cent.

It is a petty incident. All it took was a warning from the store manager which the employee got not an escalation to MD. If an MD is worried about an incident costing 75 cent he has little to worry about and to be honest the woman is better off out of that company.

Your spot on. The fact that something so minor would have to be escalated smacks of an organisation that is bureaucratic and overly corporate. Its real sledgehammer cracking a nut stuff

Bandana boy · 01-06-2016 03:53PM

Coat22 wrote: »

Not sure how you come up with a figure of 50k? The max payable by the EAT is 2 years NET salary. So she'd need to be coming out with 500 a week to be awarded that. If she was on that sort of money then she'd have gotten a redundancy payment of 23,400.

There's no way in hell a company that runs 2 chipper shops would be voluntarily paying more than statutory redundancy - some major retailers are not paying more than statutory redundancy to staff being let go.

I am not sure where you are getting NET from , NET changes from person to person based on a fully changeable by the person set of circumstances.
As far as I know the legislation is two years salary.
I would assume 19 years service in a "senior" role she is earning more than 12.80 an hour So 50K would/could be less than the Max the courts could have offered.
As it stands it is less than making her redundant would have netted her even at statutory if she earns up to 15.38 an hour or more.

I am not stating they pay more than statutory , but they might have previously and those terms would have to be met again.

12Phase · 01-06-2016 03:54PM

While I don't eat much fast food, I will be giving that place a very wide birth from now on.

Nobody should treat employees like that.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll vote with my wallet.

Coat22 · 01-06-2016 04:13PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

I am not sure where you are getting NET from , NET changes from person to person based on a fully changeable by the person set of circumstances.
As far as I know the legislation is two years salary.
I would assume 19 years service in a "senior" role she is earning more than 12.80 an hour So 50K would/could be less than the Max the courts could have offered.
As it stands it is less than making her redundant would have netted her even at statutory if she earns up to 15.38 an hour or more.

I am not stating they pay more than statutory , but they might have previously and those terms would have to be met again.

We're going off in a tangent here but...

The EAT can only award a max of 2 years net pay. That's based on the individuals most recent net pay so it takes into account their personal circumstances.

She seems to have been given 1k per year of service which is 4400 less than she would have gotten if she were given statutory redundancy AND earned more than 31k per annum

Again its fanciful imaging that the company which ran 2 chippers had a "previous scheme" - its not Dell

01-06-2016 04:19PM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Indeed, like supermarket managers or worst assistant or trainee managers - reserved for a special special special type of absolute cunt

Or manufacturing line supervisors....or anyone put in charge for that matter it would seem. To be fair in my last job I had some decent managers and one pillock, in the one before that there was an abundance of pillocks and an abundance of pillocks that were peers who wanted to get promotion believe it or not.

its probably not a new thing. I had a great uncle who worked for TS Co Council many many decades ago and his job was to line a stretch of road. His tool of a ganger had the cheek to fix it so that my uncle ended up doing 4 times the work he should have been doing. Worse still the wagon had the cheek to boast to my father in a pub about it many years later thinking it was funny which was a big mistake for him because my father ate him without salt.

Bandana boy · 01-06-2016 04:28PM

Coat22 wrote: »

We're going off in a tangent here but...

The EAT can only award a max of 2 years net pay. That's based on the individuals most recent net pay so it takes into account their personal circumstances.

She seems to have been given 1k per year of service which is 4400 less than she would have gotten if she were given statutory redundancy AND earned more than 31k per annum

Again its fanciful imaging that the company which ran 2 chippers had a "previous scheme" - its not Dell

So essentially you are agreeing with me that 19K is getting away cheap !
Whether by 4,400 or 30,000 we can still argue

I am not saying they should/are likely to have paid more than statutory , if they have even ever made somebody redundant before, I am saying its possible and if so these figures are out by substantially more , but more as an afterthought to what ever way you cut this it looks cheap.

Coat22 · 01-06-2016 04:32PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

Coat22 wrote: »

We're going off in a tangent here but...

The EAT can only award a max of 2 years net pay. That's based on the individuals most recent net pay so it takes into account their personal circumstances.

She seems to have been given 1k per year of service which is 4400 less than she would have gotten if she were given statutory redundancy AND earned more than 31k per annum

Again its fanciful imaging that the company which ran 2 chippers had a "previous scheme" - its not Dell

So essentially you are agreeing with me that 19K is getting away cheap !
Whether by 4,400 or 30,000 we can still argue

I am not saying they should/are likely to have paid more than statutory , if they have even ever made somebody redundant before, I am saying its possible and if so these figures are out by substantially more , but more as an afterthought to what ever way you cut this it looks cheap.

I'm agreeing with you that 19k is cheap if she earned more than 26k a year - we don't know if she did or not. 26k a year would seem a reasonable salary for someone running a chipper shop?

zarquon · 01-06-2016 04:32PM

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Watchford-Limited-190043#report-2

storker · 01-06-2016 04:52PM

osarusan wrote: »

Sounds absolutely horrible.

I very rarely go into Supermacs but that "very rarely" just became "never".

osarusan · 01-06-2016 04:55PM

storker wrote: »

I very rarely go into Supermacs but that "very rarely" just became "never".

Again, that's the policy of the company that runs two shops in Limerick - not the policy of Supermacs itself (no idea what their policy is).

storker · 01-06-2016 04:58PM

valoren wrote: »

Would the action of throwing a €2 coin at a subordinate employee be against company policy?

It might even be assault.

storker · 01-06-2016 05:00PM

osarusan wrote: »

Again, that's the policy of the company that runs two shops in Limerick - not the policy of Supermacs itself (no idea what their policy is).

Their name, their problem. Let them revise their franchise agreements to stop this kind of nonsense, then.

jmayo · 01-06-2016 05:36PM

storker wrote: »

It might even be assault.

Surely you mean a salt.

And that little duty manager had one big chip on his shoulder.

Sorry I just couldn't resist.

gigantic09 · 01-06-2016 05:52PM

Heard a story recently,where a lady was getting a couple of 99's at the local Supermacs.She also asked for an empty cone so she could give it to the youngest child who was too small for an ice-cream.The cashier said he would have to charge the full price of a 99 for the empty cone as they couldn't be giving away free cones.The general consensus was that the lad should have used a bit of common sense and given her the cone,which is prob worth a few cent.Reading this thread however it appears like the poor lad was in a no win situation,either give away the cone and risk getting the sack or keep his job and appear like a ***ker.

sozbox · 01-06-2016 05:54PM

SuperValu at the same ****e, we'll have no where left to eat

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/supervalu-worker-sacked-over-eating-discarded-3-pizza-1.2668978

jmayo · 01-06-2016 06:25PM

sozbox wrote: »

SuperValu at the same ****e, we'll have no where left to eat

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/supervalu-worker-sacked-over-eating-discarded-3-pizza-1.2668978

Holy fook.
He took something that was being discarded, sounds like in a skip and they fired him.
I am surprised they didn't charge him with theft of electricity for getting it cooked on company property.

Fooking numpties.

namloc1980 · 01-06-2016 06:50PM

Some managers in retailers can be complete eejits. If you're firing people over incidents worth a couple of euro then you're on a serious power trip with little to worry about. Gross misconduct over 75c....get a grip.

HiJacques · 01-06-2016 06:57PM

How much stuff should you be allowed to steal from your employer?

Is there a flat amount up to €10 or €20 across the board or does it depend on the company's annual turnover? So an employee who steals €1,000 from Google is ok but stealing €50 from a small newsagent is a sackable offence.

cajonlardo · 01-06-2016 07:01PM

HiJacques wrote: »

How much stuff should you be allowed to steal from your employer?

Is there a flat amount up to €10 or €20 across the board or does it depend on the company's annual turnover? So an employee who steals €1,000 from Google is ok but stealing €50 from a small newsagent is a sackable offence.

There was NO theft involved in either story on this thread?

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-06-2016 07:08PM

I remember when I worked in a certiain American Donut franchise in Dublin (the one you see American cops live in) many moons ago that I dumped upwards of 20 sliced pans on occasions because it was a weekend and they would be stale by the Monday. We were refused permission to take any home!

HiJacques · 01-06-2016 07:10PM

cajonlardo wrote: »

There was NO theft involved in either story on this thread?

Ooops I was commenting on the Supermacs employee who was sacked over incidents of theft, as in giving away goods for free, at a store in Limerick. Is this the wrong thread?

But anyway how much theft/giving goods away for free would be tolerable for you if it was your business?

Fries-With-That · 01-06-2016 07:12PM

gigantic09 wrote: »

Heard a story recently,where a lady was getting a couple of 99's at the local Supermacs.She also asked for an empty cone so she could give it to the youngest child who was too small for an ice-cream.The cashier said he would have to charge the full price of a 99 for the empty cone as they couldn't be giving away free cones.The general consensus was that the lad should have used a bit of common sense and given her the cone,which is prob worth a few cent.Reading this thread however it appears like the poor lad was in a no win situation,either give away the cone and risk getting the sack or keep his job and appear like a ***ker.

That is exactly the situation, give it away for free and you will get sacked, charge for it and you look like a wanker. Few people seem to realise how seriously these issues are viewed by companies, in the past workers have been sacked for eating grapes in supermarkets, or taking food that was supposed to be put in the bin.

In any business if you give something away to a customer it is seen as stealing regardless of how small the item you give away is, if you are ringing the wrong price into the till it is seen as stealing, if you are giving customers drinks and putting the money in the till later it is bad setting a precedent that allows other staff think they can do the same, if left unchecked it can lead to errors and omissions in the case of a till being short who makes up the difference.

I can understand people taking the side of the store manager, but you also have to look at it from the side of the store owner, a worker is doing things that are against company policy, and your store manager is not reporting it to you. In food operations like supermacs you are not allowed to give out free drinks (even if you decide to pay for it later) and you are not allowed to hand out large meals for the price of a regular meal.

I worked in the fast food business for many years and both activities are well established ways used by workers to give food and drinks to friends and family members. It is very difficult to make a mistake when handing out a large meal over a regular meal and it is a silly action by a worker to hand out a drink and top up the till afterwards.

The shift manager was petty and open to disciplinary procedures to throw money at the staff member. We do not know if the staff member complained or other workers complained about his actions, but maybe this is the reason the owner was informed of the staff members errors, by the shift manager.

It is very easy to point a finger and accuse the store owner of using this as an excuse to get rid of a worker he had employed for 19 years imho he offered her an alternative position in a different store, where she would not have to work with either the staff member or the shift manager in question, a position she refused.

The only reason she won her case is that the franchisee had failed to have a written policy in place with regards to how these issues are handled.

It is a sad case where a worker loses a job with a company she had worked for 19 years over an issue that could have been handled differently by the owner, and the judgement of the EAT confirms this.

namloc1980 · 01-06-2016 07:21PM

Fries-With-That wrote: »

That is exactly the situation, give it away for free and you will get sacked, charge for it and you look like a wanker. Few people seem to realise how seriously these issues are viewed by companies, in the past workers have been sacked for eating grapes in supermarkets, or taking food that was supposed to be put in the bin.

In any business if you give something away to a customer it is seen as stealing regardless of how small the item you give away is, if you are ringing the wrong price into the till it is seen as stealing, if you are giving customers drinks and putting the money in the till later it is bad setting a precedent that allows other staff think they can do the same, if left unchecked it can lead to errors and omissions in the case of a till being short who makes up the difference.

I can understand people taking the side of the store manager, but you also have to look at it from the side of the store owner, a worker is doing things that are against company policy, and your store manager is not reporting it to you. In food operations like supermacs you are not allowed to give out free drinks (even if you decide to pay for it later) and you are not allowed to hand out large meals for the price of a regular meal.

I worked in the fast food business for many years and both activities are well established ways used by workers to give food and drinks to friends and family members. It is very difficult to make a mistake when handing out a large meal over a regular meal and it is a silly action by a worker to hand out a drink and top up the till afterwards.

The shift manager was petty and open to disciplinary procedures to throw money at the staff member. We do not know if the staff member complained or other workers complained about his actions, but maybe this is the reason the owner was informed of the staff members errors, by the shift manager.

It is very easy to point a finger and accuse the store owner of using this as an excuse to get rid of a worker he had employed for 19 years imho he offered her an alternative position in a different store, where she would not have to work with either the staff member or the shift manager in question, a position she refused.

The only reason she won her case is that the franchisee had failed to have a written policy in place with regards to how these issues are handled.

It is a sad case where a worker loses a job with a company she had worked for 19 years over an issue that could have been handled differently by the owner, and the judgement of the EAT confirms this.

You missed the bit where it was on a reduced salary - the EAT agreed it was unfair constructive dismissal.

Muahahaha · 01-06-2016 07:28PM

osarusan wrote: »

Again, that's the policy of the company that runs two shops in Limerick - not the policy of Supermacs itself (no idea what their policy is).

Supermacs head office aren't much better- owner Pat McDonagh took a High Court case a few years back to prevent his employees getting any premium pay for working on a Sunday and trying to abolish what little rights they had.

Jayop · 01-06-2016 07:32PM

HiJacques wrote: »

Ooops I was commenting on the Supermacs employee who was sacked over incidents of theft, as in giving away goods for free, at a store in Limerick. Is this the wrong thread?

But anyway how much theft/giving goods away for free would be tolerable for you if it was your business?

She was sacked over not following escalation procedure. There was no theft, one incident was a simple mistake and the other was an error of judgement but not theft in anyone with an ounce of sense's book.

Stealing and giving stuff away is unacceptable, making mistakes is par for the course in retail.

Silverman. · 01-06-2016 07:34PM

So what happened the woman who threw the â‚¬2 at the cashier? Cos she sounds like an awful person.

namloc1980 · 01-06-2016 07:36PM

Jayop wrote: »

Stealing and giving stuff away is unacceptable, making mistakes is par for the course in retail.

Not in that business. They had no policy distinguishing mistakes from theft. They considered every incident theft.

Supermacs manager sacked over incidents that cost firm €2.75

Comments