The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has awarded a former receptionist in a veterinary practice €15,600 in an unfair dismissal case.
The complainant contended that she lost her job because she reported a theft by a vet at the practice to the respondent in the case.
The WRC adjudication officer decision outlined that the woman began working as a receptionist for the respondent in August 2021.
The respondent had two practices in one county: A main practice in a large town and a smaller veterinary practice in a smaller town.
It was in the smaller or satellite practice where the complainant worked on a part-time basis. There were only two staff on duty at any one time, a receptionist and a vet.
Receptionist
When the complainant first met the respondent in August 2021, he told her that he had difficulties in the past about cash going missing and this was a concern for him.
The complainant assured him that she was very careful with money and that she would make sure that the tills balanced every day.
Towards the end of September 2021, the complainant was putting money into the till when she noticed that cash was missing and that the receipts and cash did not tally.
Following this, she started double printing receipts. She told the respondent that she was doing this because she was worried that he thought it might be her.
The complainant knew that the only other person who had access to the till was the vet.
When the receptionist spoke to the respondent, he said that he knew that it had been going on. He thanked her for letting him know.
Vet
On her next working day the complainant found the vet had completely changed in his attitude towards her. He refused to engage with her in the practice and the complainant became worried that her boss had told him what she had reported to him.
The complainant said that she could not understand why the respondent was not doing something about it or at least putting measures in places to prevent it happening.
The woman then noticed that animal medication was going off the shelf too quickly and did not balance with the till receipts.
The complainant suggested to the respondent that she do a stock take and he agreed. But the vet in response to this told her that she was looking for trouble. The complainant knew that stock was going missing and was not being paid for.
Theft
On December 16, 2021, the complainant caught the vet selling animal medication to a customer, but then putting the cash into his own wallet instead of the till.
The cost of the medication was €60 or €70, but there was only €10 put it into the till the rest went into the vet’s wallet.
She saw the vet doing this and asked him straight away what he was doing. He said he was just getting change.
The vet then took €50 out of his wallet and threw it towards the complainant and said “you don’t know the amount of s**t you just got yourself into”.
However, the complainant knew that there was enough change in the till that day because she had seen it that morning.
Given this very obvious suspicious behaviour and the fact that the respondent had told her on the first day that she met him that he was concerned about theft, the complainant felt obliged to report this to the respondent.
She went outside and telephoned the respondent and told him what had happened and he said that he knew about this.
The respondent said that there was nothing he could do because he couldn’t get a replacement vet because they are very hard to find in that area.
Following this conversation the complainant believed that the vet with whom she worked was told about her reporting him.
It made working with him impossible; he became very aggressive and unpleasant towards her.
The working environment became very difficult. At one point the complainant became upset and the vet said “go outside and cry little girl”.
Dismissal
On December 31, 2021, the complainant got a call from the respondent who told her that it was not going to work out between her and the vet, that one of them had to go, and that the respondent had decided that it was the vet who needed to stay working.
The complainant asked him why she was being dismissed when she had not done anything wrong and all that she done was to try to let him know what was happening underneath his nose.
However, he just repeated that it just wasn’t going to work out between them and that she would have to get a new job.
The complainant said that had she kept quiet and not reported the vet’s wrongdoing to the respondent she would still be working in the practice.
Following her dismissal, the complainant was initially a bit shaken by the experience, but then she applied to go to college and is now studying a degree course in a different area.
WRC
The report noted that the respondent conceded that no written contract was issued to the complainant and denied all other complaints.
The WRC decision was based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant, as the respondent chose not to attend the adjudication or seek an adjournment.
The WRC officer said they were satisfied that the complainant had been dismissed as a result of making a protected disclosure.
The officer awarded the complainant compensation in the sum of €15,600, along with €480 for statutory annual leave entitlements and €100 for working a public holiday for which she was not paid.
The complainant was also awarded €800 as she was not provided with a written contract or statement of her contractual terms in writing.