Dublin, Ireland – – A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator has ruled that the dismissal of a long-serving Tesco employee over a misplaced €20 note was disproportionate, ordering the retail giant to pay €12,000 in compensation. The case, which centered on allegations of theft and a breach of trust, highlights the potential for overly harsh penalties in employee disciplinary procedures, even in the absence of proven dishonesty.
Declan Kavanagh, a 61-year-old Tesco worker with 13 years of unblemished service, was suspended on , and subsequently dismissed in following an investigation into the missing banknote. Tesco’s argument rested on CCTV footage which, according to a human resources officer, appeared to show Mr. Kavanagh placing the €20 note into his pocket. The HR officer characterized this as a breach of trust amounting to theft.
However, the WRC adjudicator, Gráinne Quinn, found no evidence of dishonesty on the part of Mr. Kavanagh. She determined that he had “misplaced” the money, a point he consistently maintained, offering to reimburse the amount “on that first day and ever since.” Mr. Kavanagh explained that the incident occurred during a busy period, and he had momentarily forgotten to set the note aside for a manager, having receipts in his hand and attending to a customer simultaneously.
The tribunal’s findings were critical of Tesco’s investigative process. A key flaw identified was the failure to search bins where the money might have been located. The WRC noted that the company did not interview the two other employees present at the time of the incident. Ms. Quinn described these omissions as “fatal flaws which undermine the findings of fact reached.”
The CCTV footage itself was subject to scrutiny. While a store manager testified that the video showed Mr. Kavanagh taking the money and placing it in his pocket, cross-examination revealed a five-minute gap between the money being in the till, and Mr. Kavanagh’s hand entering his pocket, during which he continued working. This detail cast doubt on the initial interpretation of the footage.
The financial and personal consequences for Mr. Kavanagh were significant. He testified that the process had “ruined” his good name and left him feeling “like a criminal” in his local community. He described being unable to offer a financial gift at his stepdaughter’s wedding and facing potential mortgage repossession due to missed payments. As the main breadwinner in his household, he expressed a desire to return to work but acknowledged limitations due to his carer responsibilities.
Ms. Quinn acknowledged Tesco’s “reasonable primary finding” that Mr. Kavanagh did not place the money where he should have, based on his own admission. However, she emphasized the importance of considering flaws in the disciplinary process. She ultimately concluded that dismissal for gross misconduct was a disproportionate response, given Mr. Kavanagh’s long and unblemished service record and the absence of malicious intent. A “lesser sanction” would have been more appropriate, she stated.
The case underscores the importance of thorough and impartial investigations in workplace disciplinary matters. The WRC’s decision serves as a reminder to employers that even minor infractions should be addressed with a degree of proportionality, taking into account an employee’s history and the specific circumstances of the incident. The failure to conduct a comprehensive investigation, including basic steps like searching for the missing funds and interviewing witnesses, proved costly for Tesco.
Aisling McDevitt of the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation represented Tesco during the proceedings. The company has not yet publicly commented on the WRC’s decision or indicated whether it intends to appeal.
