Dismissal and home visit from Police

66andrew99

My brother in law until recently worked for a large clothing retailer.

During one of his shifts, while he was in the storeroom he absent mindedly ate a piece of chocolate from a damaged box that had been taken off the shop floor to be wasted.

It was seen on CCTV and he was suspended and returned for his disciplinary meeting, he admitted it all from the outset and knew he'd been stupid.

His contract was terminated for gross misconduct which though he wasn't thrilled with, was entirely accepting of the fact that that was the punishment for theft.

Later on that evening he had a visit from the police saying that his former employer had been in touch with them and had asked them to visit him and inform him that they expected payment for the stolen chocolate (£5).

Is this the correct and acceptable procedure?

If a disciplinary matter is settled internally can it then be referred to the police to follow up?

Thanks in advance for your input.

DUTR

Stores usually follow all theft with a prosecution, so he may as well pay the £5 and be done with it

SarEl

Yes it can. It seems somewhat over the top as a response, but it is theft and theft is a criminal act - an employer is entitled to both involve the police and discipline. I can't say whether the police will take this any further, but I suppose that partially depends on the employer and whether they are intent on pressing charges. I can't imagine why, unless they are having a lot of problems with pilfering and are intent on setting an example. But they obviously are taking this more seriously than I would have expected, and they are within their rights to do so, I'm afraid.

66andrew99

excellent and speedy answers, thanks guys.

Jacey53

You may wish to check exactly what the police said when they turned up.

It may be the case that they would not take the matter further if the £5 was paid; however the payment of £5 may become part of what is called a conditional caution.
CC is only applicable for certain minor offences which are admitted in full - there is an agreement between the accused and police for certain reparative actions - in this case the payment of £5. No prosection ensues unless the accused fails to meet the conditions - at which point there is a criminal prosecution generally.

The reason I raise the issue is that whilst this is not a conviction, it is a police caution and is on record.

Your BIL needs to be sure what he agrees to.

WPN

66andrew99 wrote: »

My brother in law until recently worked for a large clothing retailer.

During one of his shifts, while he was in the storeroom he absent mindedly ate a piece of chocolate from a damaged box that had been taken off the shop floor to be wasted.

It was seen on CCTV and he was suspended and returned for his disciplinary meeting, he admitted it all from the outset and knew he'd been stupid.

His contract was terminated for gross misconduct which though he wasn't thrilled with, was entirely accepting of the fact that that was the punishment for theft.

Later on that evening he had a visit from the police saying that his former employer had been in touch with them and had asked them to visit him and inform him that they expected payment for the stolen chocolate (£5).

Is this the correct and acceptable procedure?

If a disciplinary matter is settled internally can it then be referred to the police to follow up?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Police are clowns really. It was theft. How much are police on these days? upto £20 per hour? Is it good use of taxpayers money in this case? I would say no.

I personally think employers should be liable for damages in these cases - something as trivial human nature of eating something which would go in the bin anyway, just because its not owned by the person, would lose someone their job and be able to mess up a persons CV... is laughable. It was theft, however, could have been dealt with internally, staff member receiving a warning, and cost of such deducted from wages... lesson learnt. These silly employee errors should be protected under law.

I don't even think its the case of "theft is theft" because it wasn't specifically dishonest as was done clearly on CCTV...

I hope the chocolate was nice!

vax2002

The police would either arrest him or not.

Jacey53

Probably not as the clock starts from when he is first brought into custody.

With the idiotic supreme court ruling on police bail they could not release without charge for more than 4 days - not long to get anything sorted out.

The circs (of the police visit) are a bit odd - which was why I was thinking about some kind of restorative justice measure being applied.

To the earlier poster - the police have to investigate the offence - they have some discretion as to whether it is charged.

Anniemacca

WPN wrote: »

Police are clowns really. It was theft. How much are police on these days? upto £20 per hour? Is it good use of taxpayers money in this case? I would say no.

I personally think employers should be liable for damages in these cases - something as trivial human nature of eating something which would go in the bin anyway, just because its not owned by the person, would lose someone their job and be able to mess up a persons CV... is laughable. It was theft, however, could have been dealt with internally, staff member receiving a warning, and cost of such deducted from wages... lesson learnt. These silly employee errors should be protected under law.

I don't even think its the case of "theft is theft" because it wasn't specifically dishonest as was done clearly on CCTV...

I hope the chocolate was nice!

I completely agree. I can imagine the briefing " a large retailer has sacked someone for eating a chocolate that was destined for the bin. They have sacked him but he did steal from them. Send a couple of uniforms round. The chocolate probably cost less than a pound. We haven't got any other serious crimes to investigate - we may as well go and scare him because this is a guaranteed prosecution seeing that he is on CCTV and admitted it. It will be a nice "crime solved" for the stats!"

Utterly ridiculous and heavy handed by both the company and the police.

Please name the company.

I'd just pay the fiver for it to be forgotten about.

Anniemacca

Jacey53 wrote: »

Probably not as the clock starts from when he is first brought into custody.

With the idiotic supreme court ruling on police bail they could not release without charge for more than 4 days - not long to get anything sorted out.

The circs (of the police visit) are a bit odd - which was why I was thinking about some kind of restorative justice measure being applied.

To the earlier poster - the police have to investigate the offence - they have some discretion as to whether it is charged.

No - it is the CPS who decide whether chasing a prosecution "is in the public interest".

The police have no say in it. They used to have a bit of common sense and decide whether they wanted to formally record it or "just have a word".

They don't do that anymore due to ridiculous stats targets.

You are right about them HAVING to investigate. I think they may of shown some discretion here by letting him know he had to pay a fiver.

If they had wanted to caution him he would have been nicked.

What did he actually do when they asked him to do that?

surreysaver

Was it definately seen on CCTV, or are they just calling his bluff? In which case the police may have no evidence except his confession. I would call their bluff back.