Szymon Stolarczyk has been dismissed from his job after acknowledging giving a 15 years old chocolate on the street.
Stolarczyk who has lost his claim was a delivery driver who had in the company’s van offered a chocolate to a minor, told the Tribunal that the father of the minor was overreacting to what he sees being normal in his country.
The incident happened at a housing estate where he and a colleague were making deliveries on 15 December 2023.
The driver argued that his former employer, Clare Distribution Services Ltd, went too far in firing him.
He had contended that he had never been told in training not to “share food” with people when he was out on his rounds.
A senior manager at the firm responded that she did not think they “would have to tell the delivery drivers specifically that they should not offer sweets to minors”.
Defending a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the company told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) it had been passed a complaint from the customer for which it was carrying out deliveries stating that the girl had been “stopped on the road… and offered sweets out of the window of one of the company vehicles”.
Its representative, human resources consultant Stephen Sands, said that as well as making this complaint, the girl’s father had reported the incident to gardaí.
RTE NEWS reported that the tribunal was told Mr Stolarczyk was identified as one of the two employees in the van at the time after video footage and location data was pulled from the vehicle’s systems.
He was suspended with pay on 18 December 2023 and put on notice of an investigation into allegations he had behaved inappropriately towards a member of the public and acted in a way likely to bring the company into dispute.
The worker made a full admission of the facts alleged and was sacked on findings of gross misconduct following an investigation and disciplinary process, with the sacking being confirmed on appeal, the tribunal heard.
The worker had stated at various points during this internal process that he had “never been told” by his employer he “could not share food with someone on the street”, Mr Sands submitted.
The representative also quoted Mr Stolarczyk as saying: “It was stupid, but I also think the girl was overreacting with her father,” during the process.
Mr Sands submitted that Mr Stolarczyk was “apologetic” but never acknowledged “the impact of his actions on the young girl” during the disciplinary process.
Evidence was given by Marc Dixon, who investigated the matter, Amanda Carroll, who conducted the disciplinary hearing, and the company’s head of operations Lorna Conroy, who conducted the appeal.
Ms Carroll said Mr Stolarczyk “showed no acknowledgement whatsoever of the impact of his actions”.
Ms Conroy said she had “serious concerns” about the situation as Mr Stolarczyk had been “entrusted” with making home deliveries of groceries – including to “potentially vulnerable customers”.
She told the WRC she considered Mr Stolarczyk’s remarks on training.
“[I] did not think [we] would have to tell the delivery drivers specifically that they should not offer sweets to minors while they were undertaking their duties, bearing in mind the common-sense element of this,” she was quoted as saying by the adjudicator.
Mr Stolarczyk told the tribunal he wanted a transfer to Galway and that the company “could have just transferred [me]” – arguing a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
His position was that the company “did not empathise” with him and failed to take into account his previous clean disciplinary record over 13 months’ service into account.
Adjudicator Eileen Campbell found no fault with the fairness of the process leading to Mr Stolarczyk’s dismissal and noted that there was full acceptance by the worker – who had blamed a “lack of training” for his actions.
“I note the complainant acknowledges his actions were stupid, but he maintains the girl overreacted and so did her father,” Ms Campbell wrote.
“There appeared to be no acceptance, or even more worryingly, no comprehension on the part of the complainant, that his actions in approaching a minor in such a manner were in any way inappropriate,” the adjudicator added.
“Any reasonable employer” would consider trust broken, Ms Campbell added, ruling the dismissal “rational and proportionate” and “within the spectrum of reasonable actions expected from an employer”.
Dismissing the complaint, she found Mr Stolarczyk “was not unfairly dismissed”.