Help please. Husband suspended from work. **Updated**

Uncertain

DebtHater wrote: »

They cant provide a bad reference

Where oh where does this myth keep coming from :mad:

They can say whatever they like as long as it is true and not deliberately misleading.

For heaven's sake............

Vader123

DebtHater wrote: »

They cant provide a bad reference, but they can refuse. A refused reference would look quite bad, so my personal advice would be to not tell any new employers that he had worked there, and remove it from his CV etc.

Can we please dispell this myth!

An employer can give an accurate reference, which means that if the OPs husband is sacked over this, they can state this in a reference!

Back to the OPs advice.

I would suggest that the husband attends and complies with all requests from the firm. He has been (and admitted) done for theft, packet of crisps or otherwise.

Can he be sacked? Yes he can.
Might be he sacked? Possibly.

I would suggest that the husband bows down and is apologetic over what happened.

If they do want to sack him over it they have a procedure to follow, so you need copies of the polices involved.

Good luck!

Vader

ega95jch

SarEl wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is not unlawful discrimination and is much more about employer policy. So yes, it might help a mitigation, but it would be highly unlikley to have any bearing on a dismissal. Occasionally employees make arguments to tribunal that there has been inconsistency in the application of outcomes. Whilst this may occasionally have some bearing, in 98% of cases it doesn't because the employee cannot evidence other cases (they are not in the purview of the tribunal) and because other cases are seldom exactly the same as the one being considered. This argument is strongest (although still not always a clincher) where there are two people accused of the same (exactly the same) offence at the same time. But as I said, it's fair game to argue it in mitigation. Anything goes in mitigation (well, perhaps not threats!) - crying has been known to work!

Wise words. If I were in this person's unfortunate predicament, I'd ask my union rep to use this in mitigation (or do it myself if I were not in a union). Whilst not condoning theft I feel for this guy - he could use a friend, either in the form of a union rep or friendly colleague at work who could attend any disciplinary meetings with him.

stelly

Thanks to you all for the replys.

bendix wrote: »

If he's an HGV driver, is it safe to assume that he took the crisps from a box that was destined to go to a customer? In that case, he's not just stealing a packet of crisps from his workplace - he's stealing it from a customer too and, more importantly, exposing his employer to issues around short-supplying on an order.

There are significant issues here that go beyong a 40p bag of crisps.

He was delivering from the supermarket depot to one of their shops so no third party involved.

Regarding unfair dismissal i dont think this is something he would pursue as he has admitted he was in the wrong and i dont think he can really argue the point as theft is theft.

He's hoping his supervisor will be able to come to the meeting with him.
It was this supervisor (they get on very well) who had to suspend him and he apologised for having to do it and called him a numptyfor taking the crisps.

Cant believe a packet of crisps would cause me so much stress.

Googlewhacker

I know it is 40p but for me it is the loss of trust that would count for most.

Zazen999

stelly wrote: »

Cant believe a packet of crisps would cause me so much stress.

Technically, the packet of crisps didn't cause you any stress; it's the theft of company stock that has....

wuckfit

ega95jch wrote: »

How is he stealing from a customer? He may have made one packet of crisps unavailable to a prospective customer, but the only party that's being stolen from is the supermarket (i.e. the employer). There may indeed be 'significant issues' at stake, but stealing from a customer isn't one of them

stealing from a customer or stealing from an employer, it's still theft however you look at it, and could easily result in dismissal for gross misconduct.
I can't see how it's excusable.

SarEl

wuckfit wrote: »

stealing from a customer or stealing from an employer, it's still theft however you look at it, and could easily result in dismissal for gross misconduct.
I can't see how it's excusable.

I don't think anyone is saying it's "excusable", least of all the OP. And I doubt even the employer is going to think it's excusable. But that isn't the same as sacking him - maybe, but for the grace of God, a lot of people, might be in this situation. Someone earlier mentioned pens from the office - well that's theft too! People make stupid mistakes, and the OP's husband has. We can still feel for him, and the OP, without excusing what he did. And we can hope that maybe the employer will be lenient and not dismiss. There are very few people in the world who have never committed a crime, but most of the crimes we commit we tend to rationalise away as "not mattering". Hands up everyone who has downloaded a programme or film from TV onto video or DVD then given it to someone else to watch. That's a crime. 33 miles per hour in a 30 zone? A crime. I have no doubt that at the time the OP's husband never gave a second thought to a packet of crisps, in the same way that most peole never give a thought to their own "lives of crime". Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it excusable. But it may make it understandable.

And in the end, that is all mitigation is - making it seem understandable.

Googlewhacker

SarEl wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying it's "excusable", least of all the OP. And I doubt even the employer is going to think it's excusable. But that isn't the same as sacking him - maybe, but for the grace of God, a lot of people, might be in this situation. Someone earlier mentioned pens from the office - well that's theft too! People make stupid mistakes, and the OP's husband has. We can still feel for him, and the OP, without excusing what he did. And we can hope that maybe the employer will be lenient and not dismiss. There are very few people in the world who have never committed a crime, but most of the crimes we commit we tend to rationalise away as "not mattering". Hands up everyone who has downloaded a programme or film from TV onto video or DVD then given it to someone else to watch. That's a crime. 33 miles per hour in a 30 zone? A crime. I have no doubt that at the time the OP's husband never gave a second thought to a packet of crisps, in the same way that most peole never give a thought to their own "lives of crime". Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it excusable. But it may make it understandable.

And in the end, that is all mitigation is - making it seem understandable.

I think it all comes down to the intentions, most people don't intentionally take a pen home but if they have put it in their pocket whilst doing another job it gets home. The OP's OH intended on taking the packet of crisps and thus that is he differance in my mind between the two.

Now if people intend on taking pens home then that is the same as the crisps

paulwf

This wouldn't be the first time someone working for a supermarket opened a packet of crisps...working weird shifts (sometimes long hours with no set pattern from day to day) with short breaks and being surrounded by food all the time makes you hungry! As someone else pointed out pens and pencils probably go walkies from offices all the time...I would urge for some sense of perspective here.

The fact that it happens a lot may unfortunately count against him as they may want to make an example out of him...if one person is seen to do it the rest of the staff will do it too. I expect that is why the supervisor has gone down the formal route with this.

I think there should be a proportional response to this. Yes theft is theft but not only was the value small, he grabbed a packet of crisps because he was hungry. He isn't taking stuff to collect at home or sell on, he let his hunger get the better of him but it doesn't sound like he is a serial criminal or that this will escalate with him ending up stealing cases of wine.

It is daft at times to see crates and crates of perfectly good food be binned but no one being able to touch it. Supermarkets also get through cases and cases of crisps a day, this is a rather trivial theft and it will cost the company hundreds or thousands of pounds to train someone up. I'm sure with a final warning it will send a strong message to other team members and he will never dream of touching the stock again. As to what the company actually does though it is hard to predict.