Man dismissed for taking wine from workplace without authority loses unfair dismissal action

Gordon Deegan

A Business Development Manager left “devastated” by his dismissal over taking two ‘nice’ bottles of red wine from the workplace without authority, has lost his claim for unfair dismissal.

This follows Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Davnet O'Driscoll finding that the dismissal of David White by Imac Facilities Gormanston Park in September 2023 was fair.

In her findings, Ms O'Driscoll found that Mr White accepted he took the two bottles of wine, belonging to a company client, without authority.

Ms O'Driscoll found that the disciplinary process conducted by the company was in the most part fair.

Mr White argued that the dismissal was disproportionate and in her findings, Ms O'Driscoll stated: “However, he was a senior manager and part of the management team with 50 employees. He was responsible for stock and cash handling for the organisation and knew the wine was owned by a client."

She stated: “In all the circumstances, I find the dismissal was fair and the actions of the Respondent come within the band of reasonableness of an employer.”

On August 23rd 2023, company staff were preparing for a large BBQ which the organisation were hosting and some of the stock for the BBQ was left in Mr White’s office including four cases of red wine.

Employed with the firm since March 2022, Mr White opened one of the boxes, noticed they were 'nice bottles' and left two bottles on his desk.

Two staff members were in attendance and Mr White jokingly told them not to say anything.

Mr White placed the opened box on a trolley and covered the box with full unopened boxes of wine.

Mr White left the two bottles on his desk and made the “stupid” decision to bring them home. The staff members informed management what occurred.

When Mr White returned to work on Monday, August 26th 2023 he was asked about the wine and initially denied any wrongdoing but soon admitted his mistake.

Mr White went home and retrieved the two bottles and returned them. He was suspended, and told an investigation would be carried out and on August 31st, he was informed of the reports and investigation findings.

On September 2nd 2023, Mr White submitted his response to the General Manager, Director and HR advisor. Soon after emailing the three, the HR advisor replied with one word…”crap”.

The following day, Mr White was told a separate Director was going to replace the HR Advisor.

One day later, Mr White explained his version of events, apologised profusely several times and asked for an opportunity to right the wrong done.

On September 9th 2023 the Director, who took over the hearing, emailed Mr White to state he had gone through the correct procedures and decided to dismiss him with immediate effect.

Mr White feels the penalty is severe, and has an unblemished HR record.

Mr White stated that he worked extraordinarily hard to build the business, taking phone calls out of hours all the time, working weekends if there are staff shortages, or to oversee an event or to bring in potential client for a site visit. He has thoroughly enjoyed the role.

Mr White stated that the dismissal has had an impact on his personal life, family and left them in a vulnerable position with mortgage and bill repayments.

Mr White stated that he is devastated with the recent events and would like the decision to dismiss reconsidered.

In the employer’s case, it stated that the two catering assistants said that Mr White said “you did not see anything” when placing the two bottles of wine on his desk.

They also went to state that Mr White said “if anyone says anything to you I signed for it” and then he started to laugh. The two members of staff, who were significantly junior, said nothing. However, they immediately reported what had happened as they were concerned, they could be blamed for the missing bottles of wine.

The employer stated that Mr White’s conduct placed two junior members of staff in a compromised position as they could have been accused of theft of the bottles of wine.

The employer stated that in addition, Mr White initially denied the removal of the bottles of wine and only subsequently, admitted it.

The employer stated that it has a zero tolerance policy and the company handbook clearly shows that the theft of any property is deemed to be a gross misconduct.

The organisation accommodates vulnerable people, and there is company property and personal property on the premises.

Company policy makes it quite clear that theft, regardless of intent, would result in dismissal.

Advancing that the dismissal was fair, the employer submits Mr White was a senior and trusted employee and, as a leader he had responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner and he should not have attempted to involve other staff in his deception.