Facing possible dismissal.

DVardysShadow

lucy03 wrote: »

This is wrong I'm afraid, it is allowed in law to dismiss on these grounds, subject to a myriad of rules being followed, which mainly relate to reasonable behaviour.

More information is below for example:

http://www.consortiumpublishing.co.uk/employment_law_articles.php?cid=145

The interesting thing about the cases is that they both involve 2 people and not more.

In the unnamed 1981 case, 2 employees both signed for a gearbox being mechanically inspected, which later failed. This case has no bearing on this thread because both employees were held to have failed to check the oil but signed that they did [ignoring the possibility thta the gearbox could have been drained subsequently by persons unknown]. Either one of them could have done the job properly and avoided the problem.

In the OP's case, there are 4 employees of whom 3 are doing their jobs correctly, so the 1981 case does not apply.

Monie v Coral is more similar to the current case, in that money was taken from a safe by either the Manager or the Assistant Manager and both were sacked. This was upheld.

Now, I have seen a report on Burchell v BHS, which lays down the criteria for a dismissal for Gross misconduct which states that the criteria are themselves subject to being fulfilled on 'balance of probability'. Normally, this loosens the criteria which the employer must meet. But where more than 2 people are involved, I suspect that 'balance of probabilities' actually sets the bar a bit higher for sacking everyone.

Now consider Monie v Coral. It is 50-50 as to which of them was responsible - or allowing for a possibility of collusion, it might have been 55-45 for each of them. A balance of probability test would be clearly satisfied.

But where there are 4 suspects, it is 25-75 as to any specified individual being involved. Or if there was collusion, perhaps it is 30-70. Clearly this does not meet a balance of probability.

If there is no case law for more than 2 people being dismissed for for this kind of incident, I believe that there is loads of scope for legal representation to argue that 30-70 on an individual does not meet the balance of probability test for dismissing that individual and that it is stretching credibility to apply Monie v Coral to arbitrary numbers of people beyond 2.

DVardysShadow

marybelle01 wrote: »

Sorry for the typo. I didn't realise it would offend. As for the rest, I don't write the law. Wish I did. But what I have said is how tribunals operate the law.

Well, it is the law which is calling things reasonable beliefs when plainly they are not. And arrogant of you to say that it is me who is wrong, when plainly it is the courts which are wrong in their use of language.

marybelle01

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

You are the only one that has been suspended?

If the other 3 people have only been asked to give statements to me the employer thinks it is you. Why would that be when you said you didn't have access to the £?

We don't actually know that. We only know that the employer believes one, more than one, or all of 4 possible suspects stole the money, and that some of those suspects have given statements. We don't know they were not also suspended. And the OP hasn't said they didn't have access to the cash - they said they didn't handle it!

Possible scenario - and just to be clear, I am making this up! - I own a shop. Suspect A operates the till in my shop and therefore "handled" the money. They gave it to Suspect B (they say) who counts my money to make sure it balances with the till. They then gave it to the Assistant Manager Suspect C (they say) who put it it the safe (he says). And the manager (Suspect D) has access to that safe although they never handled the money. And my money is not in the safe. OK - I made it up on the spot and there's holes but I made it up on the spot! But I have 4 suspects. And one never handled the money!

Which is why it helps to know some facts...

marybelle01

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Well, it is the law which is calling things reasonable beliefs when plainly they are not. And arrogant of you to say that it is me who is wrong, when plainly it is the courts which are wrong in their use of language.

Or possibly arrogant of you to presume that you are more correct than the courts?

DVardysShadow

marybelle01 wrote: »

Or possibly arrogant of you to presume that you are more correct than the courts?

Find the fault in the logic then:

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A reasonable belief that one of A B C and D did it is

• not of itself a reasonable belief that A did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that B did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that C did it
• not of itself a reasonable belief that D did it

There is no presumption or need for arrogance on my part. The possibilities are

• the logic above holds [- and you should be able to fault it if it is wrong]
• what the courts hold to be 'reasonable belief' is not in fact reasonable to believe
• or you are misrepresenting the position of the courts