Aldi has been ordered to pay €5,000 compensation to a former store assistant who was fired after the German supermarket group became aware he had been convicted of sexually assaulting a co-worker in another job.
The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the company had unfairly dismissed Muhammad Kashif by “veering outside the band of reasonableness” in reaction to learning about the conviction through a newspaper report.
Aldi had denied that it had unfairly dismissed Mr Kashif and claimed it had followed a full and fair disciplinary procedure before his summary dismissal.
Counsel for Aldi, Kiwana Ennis, BL, said the former worker had been dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct arising out of his conviction for sexual assault.
The WRC heard that Mr Kashif had informed his store manager on December 21st 2022 about his conviction the previous day for sexually assaulting a female co-worker in a fast food restaurant for which he received a two-month sentence suspended for two years.
However, Ms Ennis claimed senior management in Aldi only became aware of the District Court conviction in February 2023.
She argued the decision to dismiss Mr Kashif was “reasonable and proportionate” given Aldi’s duty of care to all its staff.
Ms Ennis pointed out that the company had relied on the complainant’s contract of employment which allowed for summary dismissal for serious breaches which included conviction of any criminal offence.
While the outcome was admittedly harsh, Ms Ennis claimed it fell within “the band of reasonableness” as Aldi had to ensure it operated a safe workplace.
An area manager, identified only as Ms A, gave evidence that she was given a newspaper article about Mr Kashif’s court case in February 2023 and asked “to look into it.”
Ms A admitted she was struck by the gravity of the offence but acknowledged that there was no history of allegations against Mr Kashif and no colleagues in the supermarket where he worked had raised any concerns about him.
She stated she was clear that dismissal was the last option but she considered that there were no viable options to transfer the complainant as female workers were omnipresent in Aldi’s 160 stores in Ireland.
A stores operations director with Aldi, Mr H, who conducted an appeal which upheld the decision to dismiss Mr Kashif said he ultimately decided the company could not absorb the level of risk of placing the complainant back into direct contact with other staff.
Mr H confirmed that Aldi was not pleased at the lack of steps taken by Mr Kashif’s store manager, Ms Z who became aware of the conviction in December 2022.
Mr Kashif, who had worked with Aldi since October 2020, was permitted to carry on in his job after informing his store manager but was subsequently suspended on full pay before being formally dismissed on March 2nd 2023.
Counsel for Mr Kashif, Constantine McMahon BL, claimed the dismissal was disproportionate and unreasonable and had caused reputational damage to her client as well as financial loss.
Ms McMahon acknowledged the case was somewhat complicated legally by the fact that the event occurred “outside the company’s gates.”
In evidence, Mr Kashif explained he had pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual assault and understood the suspended sentence required him to avoid having any contact with his victim or her husband.
Mr Kashif said Ms Z was supportive after being informed of the conviction and arranged for him to call a colleague if either the victim or her husband came into the store.
Under cross-examination, he argued the real reason for his dismissal was due to Aldi being overstaffed and experiencing a downturn in business.
Mr Kashif claimed the issue of the sexual assault had been dealt with by the court, but Aldi had put him through “another trial.”
The WRC heard he found new employment as a part-time pizza chef in April 2023.
In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer Patsy Doyle said she was satisfied that Mr Kashif’s dismissal was solely related to his criminal conviction.
Ms Doyle said the evidence demonstrated “a lack of cohesion” in management at the store where he worked.
She expressed concern that Mr Kashif acted to his own detriment by not having someone attend with him during the disciplinary process.
Ms Doyle said she was also struck by an element of inconsistency in how Aldi addressed the issue and said it was “very unusual” that his conviction did not prompt a recorded minute or an action plan by the store manager, Ms Z.
The WRC official stated the criminal conviction was “a gravely serious situation for a high-profile employer” even though it had zero links with Aldi.
Ms Doyle accepted that the company was “staggered on sight” of the media reports about the sexual assault by Mr Kashif some eight weeks later.
However, she had difficulty in accepting Aldi had acted in good faith when they had alleged Mr Kashif had failed to report the matter to his line manager as a reason for suspending him.
Ms Doyle noted Aldi had not provided Mr Kashif with a copy of its investigation report prior to his dismissal.
She found that the company fell outside the band of reasonableness by its “piecemeal and disjointed approach” to the notification by Mr Kashif of his conviction to his line manager in December 2022.
Ms Doyle said it fell short of best practice not to apply weighting to that declaration and noted that no disciplinary steps were taken against Ms Z.
While there was no doubt that Mr Kashif’s conviction presented Aldi with a “monumental management challenge,” she said Aldi had no regard for his unblemished work record and uneventful service over eight weeks following his conviction.
Ms Doyle said Aldi had been “overwhelmed by the latter-day sighting of a newspaper report and just got lost in its anticipation of harm to the business.”
She did not accept that the conviction impacted adversely on Aldi and said Mr Kashif’s eight weeks of uneventful service after it should be considered proof of “a storm weathered.”
The WRC noted that Aldi had not been named in any reports about the complainant’s conviction but also that Mr Kashif had made a 50 per cent contribution to his own demise.
It ordered Aldi to pay the complainant compensation of €5,000 representing two months' salary.
