A service station manager from Applegreen was dismissed following the discovery of a supposed “phantom employee”, who was in reality a Polish woman with limited English proficiency and had not received pay for her four months of work. This revelation was brought forward to the Workplace Relations Commission.
The individual representing the chain service in court alleged that through the non-registration of that worker in the payroll, the station manager in Ashbourne, Co Meath could falsely increase the profits for 2021. Such act indirectly granted him an augmented bonus of €2,000 gross.
Graham Price, the manager and site director, has charged Petrogas Group Ltd, the group trading as Applegreen, with the breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. This charge comes after his dismissal from his position for severe misconduct, post the investigation of the incident.
Price’s legal team argued that the delay in the woman’s registration or “onboarding” was due to her lack of a PPS number at her time of hiring in October 2021. They added that her registration process was also delayed by the backlog that arose from the cyberattack on the HSE in May the prior year.
An Applegreen regional manager, Keith Ennis, inspected the Ashbourne service station in February 2022 and unearthed discrepancies between the sales system records and the payroll report for the duration. He explained to tribunal Judge Brian Dalton that his inspection involved verifying that all employees logged into their till system were in work during that time, essentially looking for ‘phantom employees’.
Mr Ennis noted that his main vigilance in this audit was the prevention of monetary theft, but the discovery of the discrepancy led him to review records of prior weeks. He asked the present assistant manager about the woman’s whereabouts and well-being when the irregularity was uncovered. Hugh O’Flaherty BL, the organisation’s barrister who was instructed by solicitor David O’Riordan, enquired on his concern.
It came to light that a lady hadn’t received remuneration for a substantial 16-week span. The individual who made the discovery was baffled, having never encountered such a scenario, and suggested she might have been a phantom employee since he’d never met her before. She was listed on the register for point-of-sale till access but was not tied to the payroll system.
The woman was reachable and communicated in deeply fragmented English, confirming she was real.
Information came through at the tribunal indicating the employee quit shortly after she obtained her overdue payments. Her enrolment paperwork, or “onboarding ticket,” had been transferred from the petrol station to the payroll division on 25th January 2022.
An audit initiated an investigation into the matter, managed by Mr Ennis. Multiple allegations were put forward to Mr Price, including faults in the employee’s onboarding process, not maintaining statutory work time logs accurately, and misappropriating budget for 2021 and 2022, which yielded financial benefits.
Following a disciplinary hearing, Mr Price was ultimately dismissed due to severe misconduct, which was confirmed upon an internal review, as informed to the tribunal.
In a legal claim, Mr O’Flaherty argued that the failure to onboard the worker for 16 weeks impeded her ability to log her hours and record breaks. A secondary outcome of this neglect resulted in Mr Price enjoying additional profit on top of his annual salary of €48,000 as part of a profit sharing scheme. This incident led to an unwarranted increase in his profit share by €2,000.
Mr O’Flaherty further contended that during the company’s investigation and disciplinary procedures, Mr Price was exceptionally confrontational and evasive. After comprehensive and lawful consideration, the company determined he was guilty of gross misconduct.
Mr Price’s legal advocate, Rory Treanor BL, represented by Crushell & Co Solicitors, claimed that directions from the main office had explicitly stated not to proceed with the onboarding process without proper submission of a PPS number and bank details.
Mr. Treanor stated that his client, Mr. Price, along with two other Ashbourne service centre management members, tried their utmost and made numerous attempts to aid a Polish employee with limited English proficiency. This occurred during a time when the complicated bureaucracy of Ireland was infamously slow in issuing Personal Public Service (PPS) numbers, due to the fallout from the 2021 cyberattack on the Health Service Executive.
However, it was only Mr. Price who faced punitive action by his employers, who Treanor claims singled him out unfairly. Treanor vehemently denies any deceitful acts by his client to secretly secure an excess of €1,000 in remuneration.
Treanor argued that the seemingly rash decision to single out Mr. Price for dismissal was already made by Mr. Ennis, and the disorganised manner in which the investigation was carried out gives a clear indication of his negligent approach. During the course of the investigation, Mr. Treanor alleged, numerous unjust accusations were levelled at his client intentionally to incite him and foster a hostile environment. The hastily drawn conclusion, he suggested, lacked thoroughness.
According to Treanor, if one considers all aspects, it’s apparent that Mr. Ennis had a biased viewpoint, unfairly blaming Mr. Price for issues in an overwhelmingly difficult situation. Treanor argued that both the disciplinary proceedings and the appeal hearing were so minimalist that they shouldn’t even be considered as part of a fair process.
The case has been postponed for a future hearing by presiding officer Brian Dalton. Mr. Ennis is set to provide further testimony during the proceeding while also facing cross-examination. Mr. Price is slated to present his testimonial evidence later in the proceedings.