Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The incident happened in April of last year. Shutterstock/Tidarat Tiemjai
chewed out
Sacked shop worker wins €9,000 after row that started because he was chewing gum
The worker said his manager “approached him in an aggressive manner.”
A RETAILER IS counting the cost after sacking a worker as a result of flashpoint where the employee was told by a manager to ‘lose the gum’.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudication Officer, Rosaleen Glackin has ordered the unnamed retailer to pay the worker €9,000 after finding that he was unfairly dismissed.
Glackin said that the unnamed worker’s complaint is well founded and he was unfairly dismissed without the application of fair procedures and natural justice to the dismissal.
In the incident, the worker was on his way back to work from a break on 12 April 2016 when a manager saw him chewing and told him ‘lose the gum’.
The worker said that he was chewing on a mint and claimed that the floor manager “approached him in an aggressive manner” making him feel “fearful and intimidated”.
The worker stated that the floor manager placed his forehead against him and proceeded to verbally abuse him and that he responded in self-defence by repelling the floor manager and that he sought to restrain him.
The floor manager gave a different version of the incident where he stated that the worker pushed him to the ground, using both hands.
The floor manager stood up and again confronted the worker who walked away and subsequently went home.
The worker was suspended later that day and invited to attend a meeting on 16 April 2016.
At this meeting, the worker was invited to review CCTV footage and to explain what had occurred.
The worker was then advised to go for a coffee and when the meeting resumed he was dismissed.
The company stated that they did not consider an alternative to dismissal as they considered that the worker’s action was gross misconduct and therefore the appropriate sanction was dismissal.
The worker stated that he had received an email from a customer in relation to the incident and this person was independent and he had observed that the complainant’s response was in self-defence.
The employee stated that this witness on the day approached a female member of staff to voice his concerns over the incident.
The worker was out of work between April and November 2016 and was claiming compensation of €9,100.
The man got a new job in November of last year and also commenced college in September 2016.
In her findings, Glackin also stated that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 12 April 2016 yet the Floor Manager made his statement dated 11 April 2016.
have your say