Dundee City Council’s dismissal of a cashier supervisor for two episodes of misconduct was harsh but not unfair, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Susan Rooney was found guilty of misconduct for an incident in December 2 2011 after she received a final written warning over an incident on September 10 2010 to stay on her record for 15 months.
That warning had only eight days to run at the time of second incident when she was sacked.
Mrs Rooney (45), of Macalpine Road, Dundee, claimed the dismissal was unfair.
She had appealed against the final written warning imposed in September 2010 and contended that a verbal warning from the council would have been sufficient.
The appeal was never held, as on the first day it was postponed because the presiding officer had to go to a Cosla meeting.
It did not take place on a second date, on a third date it was called off because of adverse weather and on a fourth date her union representative had to go into hospital.
She asked for her appeal to be rescheduled again and it was given a fifth date but it did not take place. No further dates were scheduled but Mrs Rooney did not withdraw her appeal.
In the 2010 incident, she accepted contrary to instruction a £10,000 payment by credit card from an irritable customer for a business’s rent arrears while money laundering checks were still being carried out.
In December 2011 she processed a £1,300 corporate float transaction after the 3.30pm cut-off point, and this meant she did not start her cash balance at 4.30pm as instructed.
She had performed the task for the first time on her own and became flustered.
Mrs Rooney’s cash was not balanced that Friday evening and customers who paid her that afternoon did not have their payments credited until the following Monday.
Two of the payments were made by tenants who were already facing rent recovery action for their homes.
The tribunal heard it was extremely rare for a balance not to be done at the end of the day, and it was decided that the matter should be investigated under the council’s disciplinary process.
In March she was dismissed, the council finding that her final written warning was in place at the time of the second episode.
She appealed against this, citing among other things a material inaccurate statement about the cancellations of meetings over the first incident, but she lost her job.
She had 26 years’ service with the council, and even received a long-service award during the time the final written warning was on her record.
The tribunal considered the council was entitled to proceed on the basis the allegations were substantiated.