I,m not a THIEF!!!!!!!!

marybelle01

dickydonkin wrote: »

I would have thought that a company has to be consistent in its disciplinary procedures irrespective of time served.

Theft is theft - regardless of what the value of the item that was stolen or how long the 'thief' has worked there.

A nice theory. But unless there are substantial reasons as some posters here have suggested, then a ten year unblemished record and being sacked for stealing a plastic box may not be seen as a proportionate outcome by a tribunal. Whereas nobody gives a damn what a tribunal think if they have worked there ten weeks because a tribunal won't be involved.

Naf

Theft is gross misconduct whatever your length of service.
The comment that 'it's still in the building' amused me. Wherever you put it, it's in your possession not the rightful owner's, and that amounts to theft. You may be able to persuade them to be more lenient, taking your length of service (assuming it is otherwise clean) into account, if you are extremely apologetic and humble about it, and persuade them that there was no malicious intent. Unfortunately the truth will still be that you took it without the consent of the legal owner, and have kept it within your possession for a period, at least up until they noticed. Had you returned it before they discovered it, your case would be stronger.

dickydonkin

marybelle01 wrote: »

A nice theory. But unless there are substantial reasons as some posters here have suggested, then a ten year unblemished record and being sacked for stealing a plastic box may not be seen as a proportionate outcome by a tribunal. Whereas nobody gives a damn what a tribunal think if they have worked there ten weeks because a tribunal won't be involved.

A ten year 'unblemished record' doesn't mean an employee hasn't stolen for nine years and eleven months before s/he was caught!

marybelle01

dickydonkin wrote: »

A ten year 'unblemished record' doesn't mean an employer hasn't stolen for nine years and eleven months before s/he was caught!

I agree entirely (although I assume you meant employee and not employer) - which is why my answer was qualified by saying that an employer might look at it differently or that a tribunal may not consider it proportionate. I wasn't arguing whether what the OP did was right - I made it clear right from the start that I didn't think it right and that I found their explanations "thin" to say the least. I was merely observing that the level of "compassionate management" you referred to earlier might be directly proportionate to other circumstances...

jonny6969

for a theft to of happened, ALL of the following needs to apply:

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

you have dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, but did you have the intention of keeping it (permanently depriving the other of it). if not, then no theft

marybelle01

jonny6969 wrote: »

for a theft to of happened, ALL of the following needs to apply:

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

you have dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, but did you have the intention of keeping it (permanently depriving the other of it). if not, then no theft

Only in criminal terms - not in employment terms. In employment terms the only test is "did you take something that didn't belong to you and wasn't yours to take - or do we have reasonable belief you did?" Whatever the rights and wrongs and mitigations and explanations. If the answer to that is yes - and it is - then nothing else matters.

paddyrg

Repeat after me...

"Ohmygodohmygodohmygod I am so sorry! I didn't think it would be a problem, look, it never left the building, I just put my lunch in it to keep the flies off! I am so sorry, last thing I want is for you to think I'd steal from you - I love my job here, I didn't think I was taking advantage, I just wasn't thinking, it was stupid but look, it never even left the property, I don't even want a bucket, I thought it was a clever idea not a stupid one! Ohmygodohmygodohmygod I am so sorry"

johnmc

paddyrg wrote:

Repeat after me...

"mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" with much pounding of the chest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

Good luck.

sugartooth

johnmc wrote: »

"mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" with much pounding of the chest.

Good luck.

I would think anyone using Latin instead of plain English is being sarcastic and not sincere. The chest pounding tells me the employee is challenging the employer's authority.

johnmc

sugartooth wrote:

anyone using Latin instead of plain English is being sarcastic and not sincere

Never attended a Latin Mass, then?

Hmmm. Human Rights, anyone?