just been sacked for theft in retail

milothewestie

Flyboy152 wrote: »

As I have suggested before, it could considered to be a result of ongoing intimidation and bullying; therefore very relevant.

thanks again flyboy for pointing this out to other posters i thought it was me putting the wrong words down

silverchair

I hope everything goes well for you "milothewestie". I've read this thread all the way through. Its disgusting how they treated you. I can understand why you didnt act straight away as you were probably in shock at the way they had behaved & would have thought it was a misunderstanding & all would work out.

You sound like a very nice person which is probably why they picked on you in the first place. They probably thought that you wouldnt do anything about their accusations

Anyway well done for being brave & having the confidence to stand up to them.

milothewestie

silverchair wrote: »

I hope everything goes well for you "milothewestie". I've read this thread all the way through. Its disgusting how they treated you. I can understand why you didnt act straight away as you were probably in shock at the way they had behaved & would have thought it was a misunderstanding & all would work out.

You sound like a very nice person which is probably why they picked on you in the first place. They probably thought that you wouldnt do anything about their accusations

Anyway well done for being brave & having the confidence to stand up to them.

thank you very much for your support its very thoughtfull:o

ScoobySnacks79_2

I'm sorry, but the main point in this one is, why the heck would she count the till, pocket £800, or £180 or whatever, and then immediately report the till was down? Stupid, makes no sense!

If the company has carried out a "reasonable" investigation (for a theft I would assume that a police investigation should be the most reasonable way of doing it) and then have reached the "reasonable" decision to dismiss on the "reasonable suspicion" that she has stolen money, then I would say that my definition of "reasonable" is different to theirs!

Facts.

1:- The OP finished work at 2pm
2:- The till was used by various other people during the day (fact 3 makes this kind of irrelevant)
3:- The manager reconciled the till and found it to be correct at close of play (not standard procedure)
4:- The till was locked in the safe overnight
5:- The OP retrieved the till in the morning (a hole here, how did she access the till? Did she have access to safe keys, or did someone open the safe for her?)
6:- The OP counted the contents of the till and, as I understand it, found it to be £800 short.
7:- The OP reported it immediately to a manager (was this the same manager as had counted it the night beore?)
8:- Five days later the OP was accused of the theft and suspended on full pay, pending the results of an investigation.
9:- After five weeks suspension, the OP was informed that she had been found guilty of gross misconduct, to wit the theft of £180 (a different amount to the original theft) and as such she was being dismissed.

Now, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to spot the glaring gaps, inconsistencies and blatant sticking points with this scenario.

Why, if they suspected theft, was everyone not stopped and searched?
Why was the original amount £800, but it became £180? This is a big one! If the £800 was an actual (cash deficit) then where did the extra £620 come from? How do you suddenly "find" £620? It would almost appear that someone had helped themselves, and then when the heat was on had replaced the money, but either couldn't remember how much they'd helped themselves to, or had already spent some of the money. I'll assume that the OP did not have access to the till after reporting the cash loss, so a big point of evidence AGAINST her having stolen the money.

What was their excuse for "finding" £620?

I could go on, but I would have to surmise that they do NOT have reasonable grounds to dismiss, as they have missed various opportunities, and have not made a full and fair investigation.
Why would they not call the police for a theft? Granted, £180 is peanuts to such a big company, but it's still a significant amount to "lose"

dickydonkin

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Oh please....get over yourself. I suggest you re-read my post and the rest of the thread. I was proffering a hypothesis based on experience and what the OP has told us so far.

After 'proffering a hypothesis', what you or I think is irrelevant.

It will be the company's legal team and potentially a tribunal who will decide the outcome.

The reality is that the OP was fighting against a dismissal for alleged theft. That was the crux of this thread.

Despite sound advice given by others on this thread, many who have also experienced such situations - suggested that the OP stick to the basic facts and focus on the actual accusation.

It has now become 'wooly' insomuch that discrimination (of various types) was introduced into the equation - a very very serious accusation and arguably irrelevant as this will be difficult to prove.

Failing to replace a hearing loop (where the OP has of yet not stated she has evidence that her requests for the loop was ignored or indeed asked for) is hardly grounds for discrimination in the context of the OP's situation is it?

I will reiterate that facts - not assumptions or hypothetical situations - are all that matters in such cases.

The outcome will be interesting nonetheless.

EDIT TO ADD

Just read scoobiesnacks 79 post above and is a perfect example of what the OP should be focussing on.
S.S79 has highlighted the many flaws in the company's decision to dismiss and there are some excellent and valid arguments - not one of them mention discrimination.

Others have suggested that the OP may have been 'set up' because of her persistent requests for a hearing loop.
If that was indeed the case, I would have thought a more subtle method for dismissal would be the order of the day.

If she has been 'set up' to take the rap for a theft - there would be no discriminatory undertones in that scenario.

milothewestie

the sexual and disability both have supporting evidence so we can let a tribunal decide if its relevent or not,still without this they have victimised me and treat me unfairly in the dismissal process,they have systematically singled me out suspended and sacked without any supporting evidence so could of done similar to all staff on the same day,if it gets to tribunal which i wouldnt think they would even think about they then have to show fair reason to the dismissal i.e some evidence--they have nothing,13 points i raised in the appeal and they couldnt answer any of them in there favour or even give an explanation--they were literally bemused why i had been dismissed,this is of course my opinion but like i said earlier im more than hopefull for a quick solution and to clear my name--thanks for all your support all of the posters im more than very gratefull:o:o

dickydonkin

milothewestie wrote: »

the sexual and disability both have supporting evidence so we can let a tribunal decide if its relevent or not,still without this they have victimised me and treat me unfairly in the dismissal process,they have systematically singled me out suspended and sacked without any supporting evidence so could of done similar to all staff on the same day,if it gets to tribunal


They should have asked what outcome you wanted from the appeal - I just wonder if they did and what your response was.

If the evidence of any alleged discrimination is damning, then it is likely they will seek an exit strategy possibly by offering a compromise agreeement as the company would not like you to return.

They would not like their 'indiscretions' aired around the workplace or indeed the public domain - bearing in mind the supposed 'good reputation' of the company.

For such a large organisation, their shortcomings are unbelievable.

When you do get the outcome of your appeal, they will respond in writing to all of the points raised.

Whether you agree with their findings is a different matter of course and then it is up to you on how you wish to progress.

Just something to be careful of though - if you are offered a C.A. it is very likely there will be a confidentiality clause, so don't jeopordise any payments by 'discussing' the outcome on a public forum - or with anyone else for that matter.

SeduLOUs

Liquorice_Twirls wrote: »

Also a difference of £180 would immediately make me think it was a transposition error as it is divisible by 9 and that means someone could have transposed 2 figures when reading figures off or adding up eg £970 and £790.

When the cash has been paid in and transactions processed there is also a possibility that this £180 will pop up again as it hasn't been reconciled properly.

Hope this is properly investigated as it should be by a national company like this.

My first thoughts too. But if the money magically reappears when properly reconciled, what are the chances of the OP finding out about it?

dickydonkin

milothewestie wrote: »

they have discriminated against me because i am disabled im near deaf and they removed a loop system at my store when they updated the tills but never replaced it,although i requested this on numerous occasions and even arranged at no cost to my employer to have a new one fitted the request was still ignored,i wouldnt think they will uphold my dismissal and risk the tribunal route they wont want this,i would be amazed after the meeting today if they were to do that lets hope there sensible and either settle with this compramise agreement or offer me re-employment but the most important thing is my name is cleared so i can start applying for a new job

So what happened?

The two weeks have now passed since your appeal and I hope you had a favourable outcome and your name has been cleared.

bluetownbarry

dpassmore wrote: »

So what happened?

The two weeks have now passed since your appeal and I hope you had a favourable outcome and your name has been cleared.

I wouldn't mind an update on this as well.