Accused of theft from work

L-Jay

Hope someone can advise with this one.

A friend of mine has worked at the same place for 10 years+, it's not a great place to work but y'know pays the bills.

There are 2 toliets at work (male/female), and it's no-ones designated responsibility to replenish stocks in either toliet. Stocks of loo rolls are kept in or near the ladies loos, my friend took 3 loo rolls from the ladies last week and moved them into the gents, so far so good. On Friday he was called in for a meeting to say that he is suspended until further notice on suspicion of 'stealing or stashing' toliet rolls! Seriously, I kid you not! Apparently there are 2 witnesses that saw the offence!

Anyways, there is no HR and no union at his workplace, I've told him to ring ACAS tomorrow but just wondered if anyone had any thoughts...

Emmzi

Well first off they will just ask witnesses what they saw so is early days.

But how do you KNOw he doesn't nick them? Is it always top quality andrex at his place then?

jazzyman01

Interesting, they suspended him without asking him about it? Not much of an investigation!

Now he is suspended they should a) provide him with details of the evidence against him to enable him to prepare a defence
b) invite him to attend a disciplinary hearing and give him the right to have a colleague or union rep attend with him.

He should have this in writing and be given sufficient time to prepare his defence ie few days.

jazzyman01

Sorry - the letter should also detail the "crime" of which is he accused.

dickydonkin

L-Jay wrote: »

Hope someone can advise with this one.

A friend of mine has worked at the same place for 10 years+, it's not a great place to work but y'know pays the bills.

There are 2 toliets at work (male/female), and it's no-ones designated responsibility to replenish stocks in either toliet. Stocks of loo rolls are kept in or near the ladies loos, my friend took 3 loo rolls from the ladies last week and moved them into the gents, so far so good. On Friday he was called in for a meeting to say that he is suspended until further notice on suspicion of 'stealing or stashing' toliet rolls! Seriously, I kid you not! Apparently there are 2 witnesses that saw the offence!

Anyways, there is no HR and no union at his workplace, I've told him to ring ACAS tomorrow but just wondered if anyone had any thoughts...

Charmin!

They weren't NICKy rolls by any chance?

Sorry - joking aside - but if this was not April 1 , I would have thought this was a joke as well.

He will need to await the outcome of the investigation to ascertain what action to take based on what the company decides to do.

If he was stealing the rolls, it was not the brightest thing to do if front of two 'witnesses'.

Interesting, they suspended him without asking him about it? Not much of an investigation!
Now he is suspended they should a) provide him with details of the evidence against him to enable him to prepare a defence
b) invite him to attend a disciplinary hearing and give him the right to have a colleague or union rep attend with him.

a - He may have been suspended pending an investigation.

b- He should be invited to an investigatory hearing first where there is no legal requirement to have a union rep or colleague in attendance.

xangeleyes

I'm confused as to why he would be suspended because he MOVED loo roll into a different toilet?
Have I read that right?
They've accused him of STEALING or stashing it.....He was stashing it in the gents because they had none in there.
If I was going to steal something I would hide it in my locker, not in the toilets....not that I steal of course.

What is the correct procedure for this when the gents are in need of loo roll? :rolleyes:

brian_723

They must of wanted him out for any reason ,is he suspended on full pay . I do not think they have enough proof as no one saw him taking the loo roll off site ,and as you say it is common practice to fill the loo roll up themselves .

L-Jay

jazzyman01 wrote: »

Interesting, they suspended him without asking him about it? Not much of an investigation!

Now he is suspended they should a) provide him with details of the evidence against him to enable him to prepare a defence
b) invite him to attend a disciplinary hearing and give him the right to have a colleague or union rep attend with him.

He should have this in writing and be given sufficient time to prepare his defence ie few days.

Aye, can't wait to see what the letter says!

As I said, no union so I guess he'll take a colleague in.

L-Jay

dpassmore wrote: »

Charmin!

They weren't NICKy rolls by any chance?

Sorry - joking aside - but if this was not April 1 , I would have thought this was a joke as well.

He will need to await the outcome of the investigation to ascertain what action to take based on what the company decides to do.

If he was stealing the rolls, it was not the brightest thing to do if front of two 'witnesses'.



a - He may have been suspended pending an investigation.

b- He should be invited to an investigatory hearing first where there is no legal requirement to have a union rep or colleague in attendance.

The witnesses saw him with the rolls in his hand, walking through the office to the male toilet. He didn't hide them or anything.

L-Jay

Rachel_murray wrote: »

I'm confused as to why he would be suspended because he MOVED loo roll into a different toilet?
Have I read that right?
They've accused him of STEALING or stashing it.....He was stashing it in the gents because they had none in there.
If I was going to steal something I would hide it in my locker, not in the toilets....not that I steal of course.

What is the correct procedure for this when the gents are in need of loo roll? :rolleyes:

Exactly!!

It's bizarre!

L-Jay

brian_723 wrote: »

They must of wanted him out for any reason ,is he suspended on full pay . I do not think they have enough proof as no one saw him taking the loo roll off site ,and as you say it is common practice to fill the loo roll up themselves .

Nail on head, he has a very fraught relationship with his boss - actually his boss hasn't spoken to him for several months. I'm just concerned as to how much proof they need.