The recent case of Patricia Heffernan v Dunnes Stores, held before the Employment Appeals Tribunal ("EAT"), highlights the procedural necessities that must be implemented by employers when they discover staff theft. In this instance the Claimant was an employee sales assistant who began working with the Respondent on 6 February 1999 following induction training and receipt of the staff handbook. The Respondent operated a value club scheme where points earned from purchases were converted into vouchers redeemable in stores. The points were accrued from scanning the card at point of sale. An audit of the scheme highlighted excessive use of a club card in the store where the claimant worked and after an investigation it was identified that the Claimant had inappropriately earned €110 in store vouchers between November 2008 and April 2009. The Respondent's HR manager met the Claimant where she accepted that she had claimed club card points in respect of customer purchases. The Claimant was suspended without pay until a further meeting at which the Claimant's employment was terminated with immediate effect. Subsequent to an appeal submitted by the Claimant, the Regional Manager reconfirmed her dismissal by post (no oral hearing). The Tribunal recognized that the employee was deservedly dismissed as her behavior amounted to fraud and theft. However, it submitted that an onus was on the Respondent to remind and update employees of their obligations and that the staff handbook proved inadequate in this regard. The EAT criticized the covert nature of the Respondent's initial investigation, particularly in its use of its CCTV footage and also in its failure to immediately inform staff that such misuse of cards was unacceptable. It believed the employer ought to have reminded employees of its rules before beginning the investigation perhaps preventing the need for a dismissal in the first place. On the grounds of proportionality the Tribunal considered the summary dismissal to be disproportionate and awarded the claimant €24,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 2007 and a further €2190 (equivalent of 6 weeks notice) under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005. Fundamentally, the case highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements necessary for a summary dismissal.  Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to recognize the Respondent's appeal process as it was written only with no formal hearing taking place. On this basis written hearings can be recognized as being less safe than having a formal appeal hearing where all parties are present.

Disclaimer
This publication is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Leman Solicitors for any action taken or not taken in reliance on the information set out in this publication. Professional or legal advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this publication. Any and all information is subject to change.