FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF NOS:	00327/99FET
03631/99UD

APPLICANT:		Michael Wood

RESPONDENTS:		1. John Nugent
				2. Dunnes Stores (Bangor) Ltd

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is to dismiss both complaints.

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:		The applicant appeared without representation.

RESPONDENTS:		Mr O’Loan of Tughan & Co for the respondents.

1.	The basic facts of the case were not seriously in dispute and can be taken from the respondents’ notice of appearance and the evidence presented to the Tribunal.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant gave a staff member, PF, a £5 Dunnes Stores Gift Voucher or a document purporting to be such.  The reason why he gave it to her is still unclear.  He did not tell her that the voucher was a computer scanned replica.  He did not discourage her from spending it.  PF went to another Dunnes Stores and used the voucher on her lunch break on 6 July.  In the afternoon the applicant discovered that PF had spent the fake voucher.  He went to see the manager of the store in which the fake voucher had been passed and substituted a genuine £5 voucher for the fake voucher.  He subsequently spoke to PF who was upset feeling that her good name and reputation had been called into question and that she had been made to look foolish.  The applicant gave her two genuine £5 Dunnes Stores vouchers, the property of Dunnes Stores.  Mr Wood, the applicant, gave £15 worth of vouchers away thereby causing a loss to the second respondent.  An investigation was undertaken and disciplinary proceedings taken.  The applicant was summarily dismissed.

2.	The applicant was a technical manager with the second respondent and as such was a member of management.  PF was a nineteen year old shop assistant with about one year’s service.  Staff members who were members of the Value Club were from time to time given vouchers by the applicant if they had not been given due credit for purchases under the Value Club scheme.  PF did not receive the ‘copy’ £5 voucher under any such arrangement and asked the applicant on at least two occasions whether it was genuine.  He did not say that it was but gave her no reason to believe that it was not genuine.  The applicant believed allegedly that he had done nothing wrong, that he had been disciplined inconsistently with employees of a different religion and that his dismissal was unfair and effected because he was not a Roman Catholic.  He cited a number of disciplinary occasions where employees were treated more favourably and a number of instances where he felt that he had been treated less favourably on the grounds of his religious beliefs during his service with the second respondent.

3.	The applicant was summarily dismissed and the reason given to him at the time and in writing was as follows -

	(1)	misuse of company property, namely gift vouchers.

	(2)	loss to the company in respect of a transaction in Buttercrane Store on 6 July 1999 arising out of the use of a false gift voucher.

	(3)	putting at risk the good name and reputation of another employee by giving her a false voucher of no value.

	There is no doubt on the evidence that the applicant was guilty of such conduct and that the respondents had ample grounds for so concluding after carrying out a reasonable investigation.  And whilst we accept that not every employer in such circumstances would have summarily dismissed the offending employee, we are satisfied that -

	(a)	the disciplinary code entitles the respondent to dismiss summarily for dishonesty regarding company property irrespective of the value of the property, and that

	(b)	dismissal is within the band of reasonable responses open to an employee in the face of such misconduct.

	Finally we are satisfied that the first respondent in deciding to dismiss and the director who heard the appeal made their decision because they believed the applicant, in using the vouchers worth £15, intended to deceive the respondent.

4.	The applicant’s case was that -

	(a)	he had done nothing wrong.

	(b)	he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religious belief or because he was not a Roman Catholic, and

	(c)	he was treated inconsistently with Roman Catholics who appear to have committed disciplinary offences and was therefore treated unreasonably.

5.	We cannot understand why the applicant believes that he did nothing wrong.  He had not explained to us why he handed the imitation voucher to a junior staff member.  He has not explained to anyone why he refused to tell her if the voucher was genuine despite being asked on at least two occasions.  He shows no concern that the staff member could easily have been detained or even arrested for deception because she was not detained or arrested.  No member of a management team, in our opinion, can seriously believe that such conduct is not misconduct and very serious misconduct indeed.

6.	The applicant tried to cover up his conduct in two ways.  He took a real voucher and gave it to the store in which the staff member had passed the imitation voucher.  It was a reasonable conclusion on the part of the second respondent that the applicant did so to prevent an inquiry into the use of this voucher.  Secondly the applicant gave two vouchers to the staff member in an attempt to make amends to her.  It was a reasonable conclusion on the part of the second respondent that this was done to keep that staff member quiet and thereby prevent an inquiry into the use of the voucher.  Such conduct was an attempt to deceive the respondent and was dishonest.

7.	The applicant considered he had full responsibility for the genuine vouchers and he was not contradicted.  Full responsibility for valuable currency does not mean full entitlement to use that currency as you please.  Absence of direct instructions as to the full circumstances in which such currency could be used in common sense could not constitute authority to use in whatever way the applicant wished.  The applicant’s subjective view that he was entitled to use these vouchers in the company’s interest could not extend to using them to protect the company from the consequences of his own misconduct.  In using the imitation voucher and the three real vouchers, the applicant, in our opinion, was guilty of serious misconduct.

8.	In seeking to show that he was discriminated against on the basis that he was not a Roman Catholic when he was dismissed, the applicant must first show that he was treated less favourably than another employee.  This comparison must be such that the relevant circumstances in his case are the same or not materially different from the circumstances in the case of his comparator(s).  The applicant has identified a number of comparators and circumstances but the circumstances in those cases are quite different.  Most importantly there is no suggestion of dishonesty.  There is no suggestion of a cover-up by a management members of his own misconduct much less a cover-up which put the respondent at a loss through the misuse of its property.  We find no less favourable treatment of the applicant in his dismissal.

9.	The applicant, through the use of the same comparators and circumstances seeks to show that he was treated inconsistently with other staff members.  We do not believe, for the reasons which we gave in paragraph 8 above, that inconsistency has been shown because like has not been compared with like.

10.	Consequently and unanimously we dismiss these complaints.

____________________________________
J E MAGUIRE
President

Date and place of hearing:	30 September, 1-2 October 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: