Lidl condemned the payment of 4,000 euros in compensation for the wrongful dismissal of a worker who drank Yakult without paying

Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) judge Paul McKeon has ordered Lidl Ireland GMBH to pay Sean O’Reilly €4,000 for his unfair dismissal after finding that no reasonable employer would fire Mr O’Reilly in such circumstances would have.

Mr McKeon called Lidl Ireland’s decision to sack Mr O’Reilly “disproportionate”.

At the hearing, Mr. O’Reilly stated that on December 28, 2020, he distributed damaged Yakult probiotic drinks to colleagues to boost morale as some were feeling ill and he had consumed one himself.

In his findings, Mr. McKeon noted that upon reviewing the nature of the misconduct, the low monetary value of the goods consumed and Mr. O’Reilly’s early admission of guilt, “it is clear that a sanction by the landlord would have served as an appropriate measure.” to prevent this type of misconduct from happening again in the future.”

Mr McKeon indicated that during the hearing he believed Mr O’Relly’s testimony that he had acted without bad faith and that there was no bad faith and little benefit on his part in consuming the Yakult product on 28 April December 2020.

Mr. McKeon stated that a final written warning to Mr. O’Reilly would have served the purpose of preventing this lawsuit in the future.

In his decision, Mr. McKeon also noted that Mr. O’Reilly “undoubtedly contributed to his dismissal.”

Mr O’Reilly began working at Lidl’s Gorey branch in July 2019 and was sacked in July 2021 for gross misconduct in relation to the Yakult drinks incident.

As evidence for Lidl, store manager Dariusz Kacinskas stated that after encountering a half-empty bottle of a Yakult drink on a loading pallet, he contacted Mr O’Reilly, who confirmed that he had not bought the Yakult drink .

Mr Kacinskas provided further evidence that Mr O’Reilly’s reason for consuming the product in question and distributing some of it to other employees was that it should be written off and moved to the depreciation area.

Mr Kacinskas added at the hearing that Mr O’Reilly did not copy the items in question but instead took one for himself and distributed the others to staff as well.

Lidl said at the WRC hearing that the shopper assistant position requires a high level of trust and, just as important, also stems from its business model as a discount retailer.

The retailer added at the hearing that dealing more leniently with incidents where an employee consumed goods without prior purchase could have a negative financial impact on its business model. It is therefore important that employees are aware of the consequences and results of such actions.

Lidl’s attorney, Fieldfisher Attorney Killian O’Reilly, stated at the hearing that Mr O’Reilly’s dismissal was fair both procedurally and in substance, arguing that Mr O’Reilly was only released on the basis of a comprehensive investigation, disciplinary and appeal proceedings had been released.

Representing himself at the hearing, Mr O’Reilly told WRC that on 27 December several Yakult drinks on a pallet had been damaged.

He said that the next day he found the damaged Yakult drinks were still on his pallet as he forgot to throw them away and as some staff were feeling sick on the day of the incident he decided to distribute some passed on the remaining Yakult drinks to other employees and consumed one himself.

Mr O’Reilly said he did this to boost morale and he thought it would benefit staff and help them get through the day.

Mr O’Reilly further explained that the goods in question were being written off as the packaging was damaged and he paid for the goods afterwards.

Mr. O’Reilly also submitted that the employer’s decision to terminate his employment on grounds of proportionality and reasonableness was unfair.

Mr. O’Reilly also submitted that his conduct did not constitute gross misconduct.

Mr. O’Reilly has provided documentation showing that he found new employment from October 1, 2021 to July 9, 2022.

In calculating the amount of compensation, Mr. McKeon found that Sean O’Reilly did not provide evidence of his efforts to find work after his release that would demonstrate reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss.