The Case
The decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC‘) in Mohammed Kamruzzaman v Tesco Ireland Limited t/a Tesco Extra Naas (ADJ-00062495) demonstrates how an employer can be shown to be acting reasonably by taking a zero-tolerance approach to particular misconduct offences.
The Respondent in this case operated a policy whereby after 9pm, certain bakery and produce items could be taken to the till and bought by staff for free. On 7 May 2025, the Complainant finished his shift around 8.20pm, and brought a number of items to the till which were processed as a ‘stored transaction’, which was then finalised after 9pm when the goods were free.
When the Respondent’s loss prevention team picked this up a few weeks later, an investigation and disciplinary hearing took place, following which the Complainant was dismissed.
The Complainant admitted to his actions and had apologised from the outset. However, he argued that his dismissal was disproportionate, and that a warning would have been a more reasonable outcome.
The Respondent on the other hand submitted that dismissal was within the “band of reasonableness” as outlined in Bank of Ireland v James Reilly (2015) IEHC 241, noting that the Complainant was one of three employees investigated and subject to disciplinary action, and that all three were dismissed.
The Respondent alleged the Complainant had breached numerous company policies, and the disciplinary policy specifically referred to theft including stealing by deception.
Ultimately, the disciplinary chair for the Respondent determined that the Complainant should be dismissed as there was no second chance for theft, and that they always dismissed employees found to have taken company property in whatever form.
The Decision
The Adjudication Officer (‘AO‘) noted the obligation for an employer to act reasonably, however, they noted that this does not mean the AO may substitute their judgement for that of the employer. What the AO must consider is whether the decision to dismiss was, at the time the decision was made, within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.
In this case, the AO dismissed the complainant of unfair dismissal, finding that the Respondent had acted reasonably by deciding to dismiss the Complainant.
The AO accepted that the Complainant had apologised profusely, noting that it is often a feature of unfair dismissals cases that when an employee fails to address the wrongdoing, it can justify an employer dismissing where the conduct may otherwise fall short of justifying dismissal.
Conversely, the AO noted that where an employee takes ownership of their misconduct, it can bring dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses. However, the AO did not believe this should apply in this case, as the Complainant had taken produce without paying for it, and the Respondent considered this to be theft. The Complainant accepted that he had received training on the policy regarding when items would be free to take.
The AO accepted the Respondent’s evidence that it adopted a strict and consistent approach to any theft-related misconduct, and that even for minor instances, the result was dismissal. The AO therefore concluded that the Respondent’s decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonableness.
Employer Takeaway
This decision reinforces that employers are not prevented from adopting a zero-tolerance approach to particular misconduct offences, and that consistency can be key in defending an unfair dismissal claim before the WRC.
Employers should ensure employees are on notice of applicable policies and disciplinary procedures.
