A worker who was sacked by Aldi after senior management found out he had been convicted of sexual assault has won €5,000 for unfair dismissal.
A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator concluded there had been a "rush to dismissal" after bosses at the organisation were shown a newspaper report on the man's court case and accused him of failing to disclose his conviction – even though it later emerged he had told his line manager.
The worker, Muhammad Kashif, a cashier at an unidentified supermarket operated by Aldi Stores Limited (Ireland), had been allowed to keep working for eight weeks after receiving a two-month suspended prison sentence at District Court level, having plead guilty to sexual assault.
Mr Kashif, who was employed by the supermarket group between November 2021 and his termination in February 2023, working around 35 hours a week on average -- but was also working two or three shifts a month at a fast food restaurant, the tribunal heard.
The company’s barrister, Kiwana Ennis BL, appearing instructed by Vincent and Beatty Solicitors, submitted that Mr Kashif had "pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual assault of a female colleague at a separate employment" in court on 20 December 2022.
The case was covered in the local press, but the report "only came to the attention of higher management" in February 2023, when Mr Kashif was suspended on full pay, Ms Ennis added.
An area manager, Ms A, said in evidence she had been provided with a copy of the newspaper article on 10 February 2023 by another area manager, Mr B, who asked her to "look into it" and "if necessary, start a disciplinary process".
During a disciplinary process, it was put to Mr Kashif that he had been "convicted of a criminal offence" and "failed to disclose this conviction to your line manager".
The tribunal heard Mr Kashif confirmed the conviction to company investigators during a disciplinary process – but told them that he had told his line manager about the conviction the day after he was in court. Company meeting minutes noted that the line manager, referred to as Ms Z in the decision, confirmed Mr Kashif’s account, the WRC heard, noting that this was "accepted by the parties".
Ms A’s evidence was that the store manager, Ms Z, "had not disclosed" Mr Kashif’s conviction. Nobody knew about the conviction until one of the Mr Kashif’s colleagues raised it with Mr B, she said.
Aldi’s lawyers submitted that Mr Kashif’s contract of employment provided for summary dismissal for any criminal conviction "other than a minor motoring offence", and he had admitted the conviction.
His firing was confirmed on appeal, with the company appeals officer, Mr H, telling the tribunal he ultimately decided the company was "unable to absorb the level of risk" attached to putting the complainant back into contact with other staff.
Mr Kashif said he had given an undertaking to the District Court to "be good" and told the WRC he gave Ms Z "every single detail". He said the manager had been "supportive" and told him that he could call a colleague to take over from him if his victim or her husband – whom he had been ordered not to contact – came into the shop.
He said the print article naming him, which was submitted in evidence, was accurate, and confirmed his guilty plea. Mr Kashif said the judge gave him a "second chance" and had not entered him onto the Sex Offenders Register.
He said he had explained to the company disciplinary officer that he had "mistaken the intentions" of his accuser - but "took responsibility" for his mistake and entered a guilty plea.
Mr Kashif’s barrister, Constantine McMahon, instructed by Michael O’Donnell Solicitors, argued there had to be a connection between misconduct outside the workplace and the needs of an employer’s business to justify the "nuclear" option of dismissal.
Adjudicator Patsy Doyle wrote that there had been no regard paid to Mr Kashif’s "unblemished record" or the eight weeks of "uneventful service" after he disclosed the conviction to his bosses.
She found Aldi was "overwhelmed" by seeing the newspaper report at a later stage and "got lost in its anticipation of harm to the business".
Aldi had failed to "consider the impact of dismissal on an already State-sanctioned employee," she wrote, adding that the eight weeks’ service without issue "should be considered proof of a storm weathered".
The actions of the company "airbrushed the complainant as a person and long-standing non-controversial employee when insufficient regard was given to alternatives to dismissal".
"I have found the rush to dismissal was blighted by the respondent’s fear of anticipatory harm rather than actual harm caused by the print media, where it seems to me that the respondent was not named," she added.
Mr Kashif had "existed in plain sight" wearing a name badge at the store without any query being raised by other staff or customers.
Ms Doyle concluded that the facts before her were not "conclusive proof of substantial grounds for dismissal" and found that Aldi had "veered outside the band of reasonableness for a reasonable employer".
She upheld Mr Kashif’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, but found the complainant bore 50% responsibility for his termination. She awarded him €5,000 in compensation, a sum equivalent to two months’ gross wages.
