A supermarket worker who was fired after eating a chocolate bar from a multipack has been awarded €3,600 after she sued the retailer.
The woman had taken a Cadbury Twirl from the packet which she incorrectly assumed belonged to a fellow staff member.
However, Sharon Cassidy was fired after she was seen on CCTV eating the chocolate treat from a €1 pack of five without paying for it.
She was employed as a part-time sales assistant from 2004 in Iceland's Paisley, Renfrewshire store in Scotland.
An employment tribunal in Glasgow recently heard the incident with the Twirl bar happened in February 2019, when she was asked to tidy up items that had been left, as the Mirror UK reports.
A pack of five Twirls cost £1 (€1.20), meaning one of the chocolate bars would have been worth 20p (24c).
The tribunal heard the packet was to be reduced from the night before as it had burst open, and there were just three of the five chocolate sticks left.
But when senior supervisor Margaret Paterson checked CCTV cameras, the hearing was told Miss Cassidy could be seen handing one of the Twirl bars to a customer's child in a pram.
The tribunal was then told that Miss Cassidy could be seen going under a checkout till and, when she stood up, appeared to be eating something.
Miss Cassidy was then investigated for taking an item from the store without paying for it.
She later admitted giving the chocolate to a customer's child and eating one herself - but said she thought the opened multi-pack of Twirls belonged to another member of staff.
Miss Cassidy said “we're always eating each other's food” and “it's not uncommon for sweets to be left at tills”.
She added that if she had known the packet belonged to the store, she would have paid for it. Miss Cassidy was fired for theft and later sued the supermarket.
The subsequent tribunal ruled the incident was not properly investigated and Miss Cassidy was unfairly dismissed.
Miss Cassidy was subsequently awarded £3,010 (€3,600) for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal said: "Miss Cassidy argues there was no reasonable basis on which Iceland could have formed a belief that she knew the items in question were the property of the company, and therefore guilty of theft.
"The item did not appear to be stock: the packet was open and sweets were missing from the packet; it had not been half priced; it was not on a shelf or a topper; or hanging up with other stock.
"[It was] not established that Miss Cassidy knew the items were stock, and it was not reasonable to assume Miss Cassidy knew or ought to have known the items were stock."
Employment Judge Muriel Robison said: "I have found in this case that Iceland failed to properly investigate the misconduct before making the decision to dismiss.
"Had Iceland conducted a reasonable investigation, then Iceland may well have ascertained that Miss Cassidy was not dishonest, since she had not realised the item was stock; that receipts often got lost and that Iceland's apparently strict policy in that regard was not in operation at the Paisley store."
Judge Robison said that when Iceland did investigate, it was too late as members of staff would not admit breaking the policy about eating food while working.
