M & S sales assistant ‘hid’ clothes from view and bought them later

A male sales assistant at an Irish branch of M&S was sacked after he ‘hid’ children’s clothes on a rack and later bought them as a gift for a child relative.

Now, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has ordered Marks & Spencer Ireland Ltd to pay Michael McCrann €14,540 after ruling that he had been unfairly dismissed.

M&S sacked Mr McCrann for a gross breach of company regulations on March 17, 2012, after CCTV showed him placing children’s sales items behind non-sale items so as to reduce the chances of these items being bought by customers.

The footage showed Mr McCrann at the retailer’s Mary’s St outlet in Dublin, returning to the items once he had finished work, and purchasing them.

M&S has a policy which states items may not be reserved by customers or staff.

The firm claimed that Mr McCrann effectively reserved the items by placing them behind the sale items on the rail.

Mr McCrann was invited to a disciplinary meeting where management dismissed him.

He appealed the decision, but the dismissal was upheld.

Mr McCrann told the EAT that he was well aware of the company policy that dictated that sales items could not be reserved behind the sales desk and claimed that he did not breach the policy by placing the items on the shop floor, albeit on inappropriate rails.

The worker told the EAT that the sanction of dismissal was too severe and that other sanctions ought to have been considered.

In its determination, the EAT found M&S “acted unreasonably in deciding to dismiss the claimant”.

The EAT stated: “It is clear that it was open to the decision-makers to consider sanctions other than dismissal in regard to the alleged breach of the ordering and reservation policy for all sale goods.

“However, no other sanction was considered. The sanction of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged actions of the claimant and was contrary to fairness and natural justice.”

Mandate divisional organiser Michael Meegan represented Mr McCrann at the tribunal and &pointed out that M&S was not at any loss as a result of Mr McCrann’s actions.

He said that Mr McCrann was buying the items for a nephew or niece.

At the tribunal, Mr McCrann said that an M&S official was asked what the sanction would have been if Mr McCrann had stolen the articles “and he said ‘dismissal’ so the sanction from the company is the same if you bought or stole the items in question”.

Meanwhile, Mandate members in M&S yesterday voted in favour of revised proposals over cost-&cutting measures, ending a protracted dispute at the company.

The workers voted 82% in favour of proposals which are “a significant improvement on the original proposals put forward by the company last year”, said Mandate’s Gerry Light.