A casino worker has been awarded over €3,000 after his employer unfairly dismissed him, having decided he aided a gambler who managed to double his winnings because of a slot machine software glitch.
Casino management told the Workplace Relations Commission last month that the error "duplicated" money in a Limerick City casino computer system, allowing the customer to withdraw hundreds of euros they had not won.
However, the firm also admitted there was "no proof" the worker benefited.
The WRC has concluded that PGA Tour Ltd, the operator of the Roma Casino on William Street, breached the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 by failing to afford fair procedures to the worker, Thomas O'Dwyer, in the process of terminating his employment last year.
Mr Dwyer had nine years' service as a general operative at the casino when he was dismissed in May 2024.
Peter Dunlea of Peninsula Business Services, who appeared for the firm, told the WRC the firm's accounts manager, Kieran Clancey, noticed during a routine audit in December 2023 one gambler, Customer X, "whose winnings were far larger than they'd ever been previously".
"There was an error on the machine. The error was, effectively, that money was duplicated within the system. Now, at the end of the day, the card would have whatever the employee cashed out the machine for, plus whatever the machine cashed out. The money was effectively counted twice," Mr Dunlea said.
When a formal investigation was later launched, Mr O'Dwyer was accused of failing to deduct a sum of €224.85 from Customer X’s card on 23 November 2023, and a sum of €461.92 on 16 December that year, the tribunal was told.
"How's it alleged the complainant has benefited?" adjudication officer Peter O’Brien asked Mr Dunlea.
"So, the allegation is specific that the complainant caused a loss to the employer; they helped another third party, the customer, to gain money at the expense of their employer, fraudulently," Mr Dunlea said.
There was "no proof" that Mr O’Dwyer benefited from this, but "knowingly allowed this to take place", Mr Dunlea said.
The worker was ultimately sacked on foot of a finding of gross misconduct, which Mr Dunlea argued had been arrived in accordance with fair procedure.
The complainant's position was that he was "friendly" with Customer X because it was "part of the job… to be friendly with customers".
Mr O'Dwyer did not give evidence himself. His advocate, Gerard Kennedy, submitted that his client had highlighted "real and verifiable difficulties with the company computerised systems" all through the investigation commissioned by his employer - but that the investigator had failed to make any attempt to verify his defence.
Frank McDonnell, another advocate who had been assisting Mr O'Dwyer at that time, gave evidence that he was not allowed to represent the claimant in a second investigation meeting on 14 February 2024.
He said under cross-examination that he had advised the claimant to participate in the process anyway. "He went in there under threat and protest," Mr McDonnell said.
"It is more than ironic that the employer in this case chose to avail of independent representation while denying the complainant the same entitlements," Mr Kennedy submitted.
Mr Kennedy also submitted that the dismissal letter of 3 May 2024 was written by the disciplinary officer employed by Graphite HRM, and not either of the two people specifically named in Mr O'Dwyer’s employment contract as having the authority to dismiss him.
He argued it was open to the adjudicator to find on this basis that his client had not, in fact, been dismissed at all – adding that Mr O’Dywer would then be free to seek an order for back wages to the date of the letter.
Adjudicator Peter O’Brien wrote in his decision: "I find that the substantial grounds for dismissal were inconclusive, but I feel both parties were aware of the glitches in the system."
"None of the evidence showed that the complainant directly benefited from the alleged going round the system. There was no question the customer did benefit," Mr O’Brien wrote.
He noted that the casino operator had used third parties "extensively" during the investigation, disciplinary and appeal process and wrote that denying a worker representation in a dismissal case "whether covered by the contract or not, is a serious issue".
Mr O’Brien wrote that it was "crystal clear" that the employer had failed to abide by a requirement in the employment contract that any third party investigator be appointed by agreement with the worker.
He found further that the contract was also not followed when Mr O'Dwyer was dismissed by the third-party disciplinary officer.
He awarded Mr O'Dwyer €3,129 for unfair dismissal - reducing the award from the €6,258 claimed by Mr O’Dwyer for the 14 weeks he spent out of work before finding a new job.
