Nestle right to fire worker over violating cash policy

THE INDUSTRIAL Court has upheld the decision of Nestle Trinidad and Tobago to fire a worker who repeatedly violated the company’s cash sales policy and procedures and whose explanation when questioned, lacked credbility. When she was dismissed, Dianne Sookdeo was in receipt of a monthly salary of $4,767. The Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union took up the worker’s case, claiming that she was dismissed in circumstances which were harsh and oppressive and contrary to principles of good industrial relations practice. The union sought an order from the Court for the worker’s reinstatement and payment of damages. But after studying all the circumstances of the case, the Court held that  there were  sufficient grounds for Nestle’s dismissal. “We are to be guided not only by law, but also to act in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, having regard to the principles and practices of good industrial relations,” said the Court. While his co-members unanimously agreed that the dispute should be dismissed, another member, B Maharaj dissented, in that he ordered that Sookdeo be reinstated in her former position or in a similar position of equal status with remuneration within 21 days. He also ordered that the company pay to the worker as damages, 75 percent of all salary and allowances which she would have earned. (Full details of Maharaj’s judgement will be given in tomorrow’s Newsday).

The company’s case was that a routine sales audit check commenced on June 5, 2000. During this exercise, several anomalies were observed in the daily balancing and deposits of  cash and cheques, including the application of credit notes by the worker. “The worker repeatedly breached its cash sales policy which was well known to her. That policy was — No cash to be given to credit customers and no credit to be given to cash customers, said Nestle. Some of the anomalies it identified during the period March to May 2000 included failure to collect monies from cash customers on same day of purchases and then invoicing customers on same day (without receipt of cash). In other words, the worker on her own volition, extended credit facilities to cash customers. Based on other discrepancies, the company concluded that the worker was cheating customers of credit to which they were entitled and engaged in “lapping” — an accounting term which refers to manipulation of company’s cash.

It was explained that in this scheme, one delays the timing between the receiving and depositing of the company’s cash for one’s personal gain. The Court found that while it was true the company did not suffer any financial loss, the evidence disclosed that it had discovered breaches of a palpable and sufficiently serious nature to conclude on June 15 that the worker was engaged in serious misconduct. The Court stressed that  misconduct was not confined only to stealing money directly from a company. “The worker’s inappropriate conduct was enough to undermine the confidence imposed on her by the company,” it added. Nestle noted that Sookdeo was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the breaches.