Get caught stealing chips - Win €8000 !!!

Lapin

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dunnes-has-to-pay-worker-8000-after-spy-camera-catches-her-eating-deli-food-30209450.html


A DUNNES Stores worker who was fired after admitting to eating deli food without paying has been awarded €8,000 by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Karen Deegan had worked in the Knocknacarra, Galway, branch for four years prior to losing her job in October 2011.

She was one of up to nine employees to lose their jobs over eating unpaid-for food.

The tribunal heard the cameras were installed unbeknownst to staff after an anonymous call informed the head office that staff were consuming food.



Did the staff really think it was acceptable to help themselves to free food?
What would they think if the customers walked out without paying for it?

I see nothing wrong with Dunnes installing a camera. If the staff were honest and doing what they were being paid to do, they'd still have a job.

There is something wrong when someone wins €8000 in compensation for her own dishonesty.

Claims that "Dunnes Stores has very serious questions to answer on its behaviour of installing cameras to place its workers on constant surveillance without them knowing about it." are a load of bollox.

This was the only way Dunnes could prove their staff were tea leafs.

JustAddWater

is it only me who thought this was about vegas?

Tokyo

Pretty sure that the €8,000 was for illegally recording them as employees, not stealing a few chips.

FTA69

Very hard to feel any sort of sympathy for Dunnes Stores though considering they are notorious for treating their staff like sh*t at the best of the times. Likewise, the reason they have had to shell out is because they skipped acceptable dismissal procedure and broke the law in doing so.

I'm not justifying thieving from the workplace, rather pointing out that the dismissal procedures in place were hard fought for by people and have been instrumental in protecting workers from being mistreated and cast aside by their bosses.

Cookie_Monster

another case where the courts seems to ultimately do their best to make the scumbag appear to be the victim.

RoboRat

I don't know which is worse, that they had the audacity to bring this case when they were clearly in the wrong or that they actually won it?

Some of the judiciary in the country should be put on trial for their shocking decisions.

crusher000

The law is very rigid about this you cannot put surveillance cameras on any staff members without them being notified. All employers know this and the law can't be flaunted regardless of the action taken by hte employee.

Were they addressed verbally about their actions of theft? Were they formally warned about their actions ?

FTA69

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

another case where the courts seems to ultimately do their best to make the scumbag appear to be the victim.

I'd hardly say that a low-paid woman eating a few chicken goujons while working for a massively profitable company is a "scumbag" either. It's not as if she was taking a machete to newborn kittens.

upstairs for coffee

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

another case where the courts seems to ultimately do their best to make the scumbag appear to be the victim.

Jesus christ. Working at a deli is not a glamorous job. Lots of dead time. Surrounded by food. Eating a few chips is hardly scumbag behaviour is it?

Yeah it is wrong but scumbag? Come off it.

Cookie_Monster

FTA69 wrote: »

I'd hardly say that a low-paid woman eating a few chicken goujons while working for a massively profitable company is a "scumbag" either. It's not as if she was taking a machete to newborn kittens.

theft is scumbag behaviour, no excuses for it. Clearly it was an ongoing thing and not just one chip.

Guy:Incognito

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Jesus christ. Working at a deli is not a glamorous job. Lots of dead time. Surrounded by food. Eating a few chips is hardly scumbag behaviour is it?

Yeah it is wrong but scumbag? Come off it.

What else is it ok to steal? Some socks? a few pairs of traksuit bottoms? cigarettes?

suicide_circus

Caught on camera stealing from your employer? 8 grand

Break in to a festival drunk and hurt yourself? 10 grand

Walk on a clearly slippy surface and slip? 20 grand

Having a justice system which rewards stupidity? Priceless.

MagicIRL

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just go illegally recording your staff because you suspect them of doing something. I'm fairly sure there's a whole chain of communication you're legally required to go through before dismissing someone as well.

Cookie_Monster

crusher000 wrote: »

The law is very rigid about this you cannot put surveillance cameras on any staff members without them being notified. All employers know this and the law can't be flaunted regardless of the action taken by hte employee.

staff will be fully aware that cameras are operating in the store as part of induction (I know, I've done it). why do they specifically need to be told if additional ones are installed?

crusher000

Maybe she was tasting them to ensure they were thr right temperature and still fresh ?

turnikett1

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What else is it ok to steal? Some socks? a few pairs of traksuit bottoms? cigarettes?

They're not ok to steal, obviously. Helping yourself to a goujon when you work in a deli all day isn't comparable in the slightest

Brendan Flowers

Sensationalist and misleading thread title. Good work OP. We'd be forgiven for mistaking AH for a tabloid paper these days...

Sir Arthur Daley

Law is law, dunnes should have adhered to it and gone through the process of installing cameras correctly, this would have stopped the petty theft anyway although they might not have known the culprit.

crusher000

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

staff will be fully aware that cameras are operating in the store as part of induction (I know, I've done it). why do they specifically need to be told if additional ones are installed?

Absoutely like if they're installed in a staffchanging area after you were given your induction. Hats off.

Guy:Incognito

turnikett1 wrote: »

They're not ok to steal, obviously. Helping yourself to a goujon when you work in a deli all day isn't comparable in the slightest

How is it not? Stealing is stealing, why is it ok just because it's food? Whats wrong with helping yourself to a cheap pair of socks when your working in drapery all day?

Amirani

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

staff will be fully aware that cameras are operating in the store as part of induction (I know, I've done it). why do they specifically need to be told if additional ones are installed?

Because it's the law?

I hope all those on their high horses have never stolen a pen, been on the internet for personal use (stealing your employers time), used the company phone for personal calls, taken longer on breaks etc.

It's a few chips.

Secretly monitoring staff is such a big no no. If they were that interested to know what the staff were up to, they should have told them.

suicide_circus

Employees have FAR to much protection in ireland imo.

As long as you show up on time everyday, it is next to impossible to fire someone after probation unless the assault someone. People who are completely **** at their job, couldnt give a bollix, crap customer service, bad attitude, lazy - cant get rid of the *****!

JonKelleher

mike_ie wrote: »

Pretty sure that the €8,000 was for illegally recording them as employees, not stealing a few chips.

It was. It doesn't exactly take Einstein to deduce that either!

FTA69

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

staff will be fully aware that cameras are operating in the store as part of induction (I know, I've done it). why do they specifically need to be told if additional ones are installed?

Because there is a difference between plain-view cameras and spy cameras installed without the knowledge of the workers. Likewise, if ye read the article ye will see that Dunnes got fined for acting illegally and also not following employment law in their dismissal procedure.

As I said above, I don't condone dipping food products but at the same time I have a sense of perspective. A deli-worker eating a few chips is not in the same league as stroking valuable cigarettes etc despite the hyperbole some people in this thread have engaged in. Likewise Dunnes have time and time again proved themselves to be actual scumbags in their treatment of their staff which far outstrips someone nibbling on goujons.

Guy:Incognito

crusher000 wrote: »

Absoutely like if they're installed in a staffchanging area after you were given your induction. Hats off.

Now that's not the same at all. The Deli counter is on the shop floor and I'd be amazed if it wasn't able to be seen on some camera already, the new one just gave a proper look at what the staffs hands were at I'd say.

Guy:Incognito

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Law is law, dunnes should have adhered to it and gone through the process of installing cameras correctly, this would have stopped the petty theft anyway although they might not have known the culprit.

and they'd still have thieves working for them, theyd just be stealing from places with no cameras.

RoboRat

The law is very rigid about this you cannot put surveillance cameras on any staff members without them being notified. All employers know this and the law can't be flaunted regardless of the action taken by hte employee.

I can imagine the scenario.

DS: We suspect you are eating food without paying.
Staff: Can you prove it?
DS: No
Staff: Taking you to court for Libel

DS: We are installing cameras because food is being eaten without being paid for
Staff: Can you prove it?
DS: No
Staff: Taking you to court for Libel

DS: We are installing cameras
Staff: Why
DS: Because we want to
Staff: Lets walk out

etcetera, etcetera

jimgoose

Heh. I can imagine if I were working in a deli all day I'd be at the chips like a sort of walking combine-harvester. Of course I fully agree that this would make me a wretched boil on the arse of humanity who should be killed twice and then thrun in a ditch.

crusher000

suicide_circus wrote: »

Employees have FAR to much protection in ireland imo.

As long as you show up on time everyday, it is next to impossible to fire someone after probation unless the assault someone. People who are completely **** at their job, couldnt give a bollix, crap customer service, bad attitude, lazy - cant get rid of the *****!

Isn't that the reason for interviews and references ? Lack of motivation can be a big problem but they're can be many reasons why people ain't up to the standard they need to be. I agree though it is tough to give someone the road in this Country.

suicide_circus

jimgoose wrote: »

Heh. I can imagine if I were working in a deli all day I'd be at the chips like a sort of walking combine-harvester. Of course I fully agree that this would make me a wretched boil on the arse of humanity who should be killed twice and then thrun in a ditch.

No but you should be sacked.

jimgoose

suicide_circus wrote: »

No but you should be sacked.

Put in a sack and then thrun in a ditch. Obviously!

Sir Arthur Daley

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a few chips.

And chicken goujons and other food according to the article, it all adds up.
Deli food is not cheap, lets say if she was consuming €4 of food per day over a year that would not long be adding up.

Guy:Incognito

FTA69 wrote: »

A deli-worker eating a few chips is not in the same league as stroking valuable cigarettes etc despite the hyperbole some people in this thread have engaged in. .

How is stealing a tenners worth of food not the same as stealing a packet of cigarettes?

jimgoose

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is stealing a tenners worth of food not the same as stealing a packet of cigarettes?

Because an actual tenners worth of deli chips would capsize a bull-elephant?

crusher000

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Now that's not the same at all. The Deli counter is on the shop floor and I'd be amazed if it wasn't able to be seen on some camera already, the new one just gave a proper look at what the staffs hands were at I'd say.

Or down her blouse or at her ass when she's bending down lovely now we're really opening up the flood gates a court case. Make that 8,000 and 80,000 pay out please.

suicide_circus

Hope she enjoys the 8 grand. Good luck to her getting a job after her name has been publicised for employee theft.

Amirani

suicide_circus wrote: »

No but you should be sacked.

I don't think many people would have an issue with the employee in question being warned about the behaviour (and highlighting the introduction of additional CCTV) and subsequently sacked. Dunnes didn't follow proper legal protocol though in this instance. I don't see why people would have a problem with the court judgement?

Robbo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

another case where the courts seems to ultimately do their best to make the scumbag appear to be the victim.

RoboRat wrote: »

I don't know which is worse, that they had the audacity to bring this case when they were clearly in the wrong or that they actually won it?

Some of the judiciary in the country should be put on trial for their shocking decisions.

I appreciate the general appetite for a courts/judge bashing thread (and the thanks it will generate), but this was an EAT decision. 2 of the 3 tribunal members are most likely trade unionists and someone from IBEC or similar. The other one was probably a mediator.

Also, the issue of not being allowed illegally record employees without there consent has been known of in employment law circumstances for several years. If Dunnes had a competent HR department they may have been aware of this before letting the manager start a Dwight Schrute style investigation.

Shelflife

Usual ****e about basic rights and procedures not been followed. While im not saying that employers should be allowed to ride roughshod over their employees its a total joke that people who steal from their employers would be allowed to gain from a minor procedural or admin error while the employer is in effect the greater wronged party.

Since when do we have to tell people that stealing is wrong, why would you have to warn someone or address the fact that taking something without paying is not acceptable ??

for those who say well its only a few chips, where do you draw the line ? a few chips, a sandwich? a mineral? a box of cornflakes? a lotto ticket?

As someone who has been through this I can tell you it starts off with a few small things and then escalates, then another member of staff sees them taking a sandwich every day and assumes that they can as well, all of a sudden all the staff are at it and the owner is left wondering why their overdraft is getting bigger.

Its a joke of a system where the injured party ie the employer has to just through admininstative hoops to sack someone who is stealing from them.

For those who are not employers, how would you like it if someone came up to your desk and took €1 out of your wallet every single day ?? ahhh sure its only €1 its hardly scumbag behaviour !!

Guy:Incognito

jimgoose wrote: »

Because an actual tenners worth of deli chips would capsize a bull-elephant?

Deflect all you want, stealing is stealing.

jimgoose

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Deflect all you want, stealing is stealing.

I know what stealing is, thank you.

suicide_circus

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I don't think many people would have an issue with the employee in question being warned about the behaviour (and highlighting the introduction of additional CCTV) and subsequently sacked. Dunnes didn't follow proper legal protocol though in this instance. I don't see why people would have a problem with the court judgement?

I dont really, dunnes broke the law, fair enough.

FTA69

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is stealing a tenners worth of food not the same as stealing a packet of cigarettes?

Because the value of something like a handful of chips isn't comparable to a taxed and dutied pre-priced product like fags or booze. Similarly someone nibbling on chips isn't comparable to stealing a saleable or valuable product really. I somehow doubt she was pilfering bin-liners full of frozen chips and breaded chicken fillets.

As I said, I'm not condoning it but there is a difference between a deli worker throwing on a slice of toast for themselves and someone raiding the spirits room. I wouldn't put that person down as a "scumbag". I'd rather use that term to describe people who try and sack workers for being a member of a union or because they wouldn't handle Apartheid produce.

Guy:Incognito

crusher000 wrote: »

Or down her blouse or at her ass when she's bending down lovely now we're really opening up the flood gates a court case. Make that 8,000 and 80,000 pay out please.

I'd say loads of cameras around all the stores captured down peoples blouses and see their arses all day.

RoboRat

I dont really, dunnes broke the law, fair enough.

If thats the case then why can't the employees be brought to task for stealing as that is a crime?

Whats good for the goose and all that.

Guy:Incognito

jimgoose wrote: »

I know what stealing is, thank you.

But its ok as long as its only low value stuff though, yeah?

suicide_circus

RoboRat wrote: »

If thats the case then why can't the employees be brought to task for stealing as that is a crime?

Whats good for the goose and all that.

Indeed. Dunnes should press charges for theft.

jimgoose

suicide_circus wrote: »

I dont really, dunnes broke the law, fair enough.

So it would appear. And one could take the view that a corporate behemoth, with a known track record of driving a coach-and-four whither they will, taking such liberties with helpless low-paid workers is rather more serious and worthy of judicial intervention than some young wan half-inching a handful of maggoty chips. Theoretically, like.

Guy:Incognito

FTA69 wrote: »

Because the value of something like a handful of chips isn't comparable to a taxed and dutied pre-priced product like fags or booze. Similarly someone nibbling on chips isn't comparable to stealing a saleable or valuable product really. I somehow doubt she was pilfering bin-liners full of frozen chips and breaded chicken fillets.

As I said, I'm not condoning it but there is a difference between a deli worker throwing on a slice of toast for themselves and someone raiding the spirits room. I wouldn't put that person down as a "scumbag". I'd rather use that term to describe people who try and sack workers for being a member of a union or because they wouldn't handle Apartheid produce.

Lots of chips, toast etc is the very same as stealing 1 item of the same value.

FTA69

Shelflife wrote: »

Usual ****e about basic rights and procedures not been followed. While im not saying that employers should be allowed to ride roughshod over their employees its a total joke that people who steal from their employers would be allowed to gain from a minor procedural or admin error while the employer is in effect the greater wronged party.

Minor procedural error my arse. They illegally erected spy cameras and blatantly failed to follow a pretty standard dismissal procedure. They're a big company with millions of pounds worth of HR staff, lawyers etc who should be up on this sort of thing. Instead you probably had some dry-arse of a manager on a power trip who felt employment law didn't apply to them. You're making it out as if there wasn't an "I" dotted or "t" crossed.

They broke the law pretty clearly and blatantly and they paid the price. Tough sh*t for them.