A sales rep for Coca-Cola who was accused of falsifying records has won his claim for unfair dismissal – but was awarded a reduced sum after being found substantially responsible.
The Workplace Relations Commission upheld Patrick Murphy's complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act against Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Ltd, but found he was was 80% liable for his own dismissal and ordered a reduced award of €10,000.
Mr Murphy, who completely denied the allegations levelled at him by the company, said he was "being punished for being a witness in support of a colleague who had made a bullying complaint".
The tribunal heard that part of Mr Murphy’s job as an area customer developer was to keep track of Coca-Cola cooler units at customer sites and monitor stock levels by scanning tags on the units.
Alleged "anomalies" in the scanning records arose in the first quarter of 2020, following a period in late 2019 when Mr Murphy said he had ben tasked with covering a "sizeable portion" of a colleague’s network in Munster while she was out sick.
In his evidence, he said he had no concerns about a meeting over "scanning issues" and "did not believe his job was in jeopardy" – adding that he was "taken aback" to be called into a disciplinary meeting after that.
Sara Jane Walsh BL, appearing for the company instructed by McCann Fitzgerald, told the tribunal that "anomalies" in Mr Murphy’s scanning record were flagged in an internal audit in the first quarter of 2020.
The company’s position that there were 38 anomalous records relating to assets worth €138,000 across 19 different customer sites.
Company sales manager Clive Allen said the anomalies outlined before him as chair of a company disciplinary committee involved "scanning at locations where there were significant distances between locations but where the time differences were in single minutes between locations".
This, he said, was a "physical impossibility".
Mr Murphy had argued at the disciplinary hearing that geographic codes recorded in the system were incorrect, a claim Mr Allen said was "highly improbable".
Mr Allen said he informed Mr Murphy that submitting false information was considered a breach of Coca-Cola’s conduct of business code and was considered gross misconduct.
Mr Allen accepted, however, that there had been "no financial gain" to Mr Murphy.
Ms Walsh said the investigation, disciplinary action and appeal which led to Mr Murphy's sacking on that finding were all conducted with due process and fair procedures.
"[Mr Murphy] was subjected to a flawed investigatory and disciplinary process… the decision to dismiss was disproportionate in the extreme," said the complainant’s trade union representative, Colleen Minihane.
She said that their client, who she said had worked for the company for 20 years with a clean disciplinary record, was left at a financial loss of €63,755 by the dismissal, accounting for a disputed bonus payment of €20,000.
In his decision on the case, adjudicating officer Thomas O’Driscoll ruled out reinstatement, the remedy originally sought by the complainant.
He wrote that the company had "acted unreasonably" in sacking Mr Murphy without considering mitigating factors in the case, including his "exemplary" work performance and "unblemished" disciplinary record and the fact there was "no tangible financial gain" for him in the records issue.
For that reason, the adjudicator found dismissal was not a reasonable response by the employer in the circumstances.
However, Mr O’Driscoll ruled out reinstatement or re-engagement, as Mr Murphy had been seeking in preference to compensation, finding that there had been a breach of trust that meant the employment relationship "could not be sustained".
"The complainant’s explanation for deviation from proper practice which resulted in erroneous times for asset recording were not credible… I therefore find that the complainant contributed substantially to his own dismissal to a degree of no less than 80%," Mr O’Driscoll concluded.
He ordered Coca-Cola to pay €10,000 for the unfair dismissal.
