A former Epicurean employee has lost her unfair dismissal case after the Industrial Court ruled that the supermarket acted lawfully when it fired her for misusing its staff loyalty card programme.
In a decision delivered on May 22, the court found that Narshebar Richards, a bag carrier and packer, breached company rules by accepting customer loyalty points on her staff card, despite having previously signed documents warning that the practice was fraudulent and could result in dismissal.
The case stemmed from an investigation in January 2015 that revealed points valued at EC$47.38 had been credited to Richards’ loyalty card from customer transactions. Richards admitted that on one occasion a customer offered her loyalty points instead of a cash tip.
The court rejected her argument that the customer’s consent made the transaction acceptable, ruling that a customer could not override the terms of an employee’s contract. It also dismissed claims that the penalty was disproportionate because of the small value involved, finding that the issue was one of trust and integrity rather than the amount of money.
Although the court noted shortcomings in Epicurean’s investigation, including its failure to produce video footage related to some of the transactions, it ruled that the admitted incident alone was sufficient to justify dismissal.
The court concluded that Epicurean had reasonable grounds to believe Richards committed misconduct, conducted an adequate investigation, and acted reasonably in terminating her employment.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
These supermarkets are WICKED & EVIL!!! Points are points. They are still getting the cash, so what if the customer chooses another customer to get their points??
It is not another customer Dumbo, it is an employee! You stupid or what?
@ Facts
Rules are rules! That is part of what is wrong with us. Don’t follow the rules and there will be consequences.
Epicurean prices so damn wicked, even though the employee wrong they cudda mek dis one yah slide. Enough people done a get rab big time
Honesty is a virtue. And believe me nowadays many youngsters are guilty of being dishonest when you place them behind the cash register. They are not to be trusted at all. And in Antigua almost everyone knows one another. Or is related. I’ve seen many scams from people that you don’t think would do that. But as they say, when the temptation is there, who can you trust. It comes down to one’s heart and integrity. What do parents teach their children these days about honesty. You cannot even leave your bag in the living room with your siblings. One may be desperate for some cash. Shop owners have their hands full dealing with dishonesty in the work place. This is the reason why many foreign shop owners such as Syrians and Chinese only put their own family or friends behind the cash register. Can’t blame them. And this is separate from the theft of goods. Or if a friend or family member comes to shop, they will deliberately not cash all the items. Or if they have to cash 10 of an item they only cash 9 or 8. The sad thing is that many of these crimes are not reported and if they are the police is not pressing charges at all. All you can do is just fire them.
I am still at 2015…….. WoW
This is a bad presidence the court is setting. The contract is void the moment it cannot stand up to Natural Justice.
If I own something I am free to dispose of it legally anyway o see fit. The arrangement was between the customer and the employee.
Sandals was doing that with the no tips allowed story..
@I am guessing. That’s your problem, guessing… You will learn…
Employees: It’s very simple (whether you are in the US, Europe or some small island). Read the documents YOU sign and follow the polices and procedures stated on the documents YOU sign otherwise this is the kind of thing that can happen.
@ Lawyer
Let’s put it this way and I am guessing again for a clause like that to be considered the employer would have to substitute the amount she could possibly earn from accepting rewards from customers, no?
For example an exclusive Nike contract vs a non exclusive Nike contract.