Coca Cola ordered to pay Munster Customer Developer €10k for unfair dismissal

Workplace Relations Commission finds employee was 80% responsible for dismissal

In September 2020, Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Limited, trading as Coca-Cola, dismissed Patrick Murphy for gross misconduct arising from alleged stock-tracking anomalies totalling €138,000. File photo: AP/Tony Dejak

The Irish arm of soft drinks giant Coca Cola has been ordered to pay €10,000 compensation to an Area Customer Developer for his unfair dismissal.

In September 2020, Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Limited, trading as Coca-Cola, dismissed Patrick Murphy for gross misconduct arising from alleged stock-tracking anomalies totalling €138,000.

An employee with an unblemished record at Coca Cola for 20 years before the ‘anomalies’ allegations were made, Mr Murphy was covering much of the Munster area at the time and denies the allegation of falsification of records concerning the €138,000 total.

Mr Murphy sued for unfair dismissal and Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Thomas O’Driscoll found that Mr Murphy was unfairly dismissed but also found that he contributed substantially to his own dismissal to a degree of no less than 80%.

He said: “Based on the evidence in this case, specifically the extensive list of anomalies which were not adequately explained to any reasonable degree by the Complainant, I find that there was a serious breach of trust.” 

WRC decision

Mr O’Driscoll stated that Mr Murphy had been fully aware that auditing regulations were to be strictly complied with and Coca Cola gave convincing evidence of the need to have a proper record of assets.

Mr O’Driscoll said that Mr Murphy’s explanation for deviation from proper practice which resulted in erroneous times for assets recording, “were not credible, both during the disciplinary procedure, and at the hearing itself”.

The adjudicator said that he was mindful that there was a strict code of proper auditing that Mr Murphy was fully aware of and, fundamentally, he was acquainted with the fact that any deviation from the regulatory auditing practice could have serious consequences for him.

However, Mr O’Driscoll said that he was satisfied that Coca Cola “acted unreasonably by not considering the significant mitigating factors in this case”.

Mr O’Driscoll stated that Mr Murphy had an unblemished disciplinary record up to then, secondly, his performance in the workplace was exemplary, including a formal recognition by Coca Cola. Mr O’Driscoll added, thirdly, that there was no tangible financial gain for Mr Murphy in the conduct at issue.

The adjudicator pointed out that under the specific circumstances of this case, the employer’s decision to dismiss Mr Murphy did not fall within the range of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer could adopt.

Mr O’Driscoll explained that the employer could have plausibly chosen a lesser sanction, such as suspension, but decided otherwise. He said: “I therefore find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.” 

Case background

In evidence, Mr Murphy was covering for a colleague when she was out sick from June to December 2019 and was given an extra sizeable portion of the Munster area to cover during this time.

Mr Murphy testified that when he was called to a meeting about scanning issues, he had no concerns because he believed his performance was up to standard. He did not believe his job was in jeopardy.

Mr Murphy said he was taken aback when he discovered that he was to attend a disciplinary meeting and there was no benefit to himself in the allegations that were made. Mr Murphy completely denied falsifying records.

As part of its case, Coca Cola stated that the anomalies which they determined came to €138,000 amounted to gross misconduct on the part of Mr Murphy and resulted in irreparable damage to the trust and confidence between employer and employee to the degree that summary dismissal was proportionate and warranted.

Sales Manager at the firm, Clive Allen, described how vital it was for the company to accurately identify their assets because they were regularly audited. Mr Allen did not believe that Mr Murphy had given a plausible account for the anomalies, the value of which was €138,000.