Suspended for apparent work theft

VintageBelle

Hi I don't know if anyone can help with this.

I'll keep it as to the point as possible.

My sister works for a budget supermarket. Today one of her colleagues asked if he could have something (chocolate) and pay later (which apparently a lot of them do inc managers). My sister said that was fine and he later paid.

The managers then asked for my sisters till two hours before it was due to be cashed up and then quizzed her about her colleague and him taking the chocolate bar.

She said he didn't pay straight away as his money was in the locker (which he said to my sister she could go and get but she felt uncomfortable going through his stuff to get it), but she asked him later and he got it for her.

He hadn't left the building the with chocolate and paid in full before he left.

Now management have suspended him on the grounds of theft and are going to take action.

They haven't done this to other members of staff in the past, only him. It's also coincidental that the previous night, the managers had an argument with him about him leaving because there was stuff that needed doing (even though he had already worked an hours over time to help them out and needed to leave).

Where does he stand?

The staff are treated horrendously at this particular supermarket/company, and now this just sounds completely unfair.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks

ohreally

VintageBelle wrote: »

Now management have suspended him on the grounds of theft and are going to take action.

I wouldn't suggest this is theft in any way, shape or form. The item was paid for, as agreed, not theft.

I suspect there may be a policy breach re the sale that management will turn their focus on however I would seriously hope that common sense prevails before this grows arms and legs.

Did your sister have the authority to sanction the terms of the transaction?

dawyldthing

I know when I worked in a supermarket (going back 12 years mind) we had to get the items signed and receipt signed then attached to the bag. It was a bit silly them not paying for it before eating it mind even if the managers do do it tbh

xapprenticex

Any reason why they are focusing in on him and nobody else? Any protected characteristics upsetting somebody?

sangie595

I don't understand why, if your sister could go and get the money from a locker when she was working, why couldn't he?

But my advice is that your sister stay out of it, lest she end up in the same position. It may not be fair, and they may not be a good employer, but I assume she needs the job or she wouldn't be there. The manager knows that she let him have the item without paying (straight away) so they could look to argue that she was complicit in the taking of it. It may not be "theft" in the legal sense, but it is probably enough to get someone a warning or sacked. A workplace isn't a criminal court - they don't have to use the same yardstick. And you'll find a very few colleagues who will be willing to stand up and say they did the same if it results in disciplinary action.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

I don't understand why, if your sister could go and get the money from a locker when she was working, why couldn't he?

This does sound bizarre. Why would he suggest that someone leave the till they were working on to go and go through his locker for the money?

VintageBelle

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

This does sound bizarre. Why would he suggest that someone leave the till they were working on to go and go through his locker for the money?

I think it was more of trust thing so that she knew she could trust him and that the money was there.


My sister is already involved so to speak as she was the one that served him and they like to look out for each as best they can. There is one employee who was trying to get her into trouble for it anyway.


Does this poor bloke have a leg to stand on?


Thanks

Voyager2002

The OP says that "he later paid" so presumably the price of the chocolate was already in the till by the time the managers looked. So there ought not be an issue...

Anyway, the best advice for all concerned is to join a union.

ACG

I reckon if he goes in there and fights his own corner - ie, others do it, he did pay etc he will come out of this with at most a warning, although even that I would contest.

I would also be making it clear how disappointed I am it has come to this and that should it go any further I will be taking it higher up.

Although, all of this assumes a clear record in the past and he has been there ideally 2 years.

sangie595

To be honest, although I can't disagree with the principle, I think that strategy will get him into more trouble. I very much doubt "higher up " will care one way or the other about him, two years or not. And nobody is going to sign their own death warrant by admitting they do it too, so he has no evidence to back up such a statement. If they dismiss, and if he could afford a tribunal, then the fact of taking the chocolate and eating it without paying will pretty much go against him. The employer will simply say it isn't allowed, and likely claim he only paid up when he realised it had been spotted. At the time he took and ate it, it didn't belong to him. That is not an argument that you want to put in front of a tribunal. Lacking a policy that says you can do this, the general assumption would be that it isn't allowed. Unless he had some really good friends willing to risk being dismissed when they stand up for him, I think contrite and apologetic, and not realising it was wrong to pay later would be a better approach.

ACG

He wont need people to hold their hand up. It happens and if the line managers are asked if it happens, are they really going to lie? If it then comes out that it does happen, they are risking their jobs.

I have had 2 disciplinaries in my working life. One of them I genuinely believed I was in the wrong the other I know I was not. I went in to the one I believed I was in the right armed to the teeth with information and let them know I would not let it drop if I did not come out of there without a blemish on my file, they dropped it.

The other, my only defence was that I had been there 3 years and this was the first time I had done something wrong and every manager in the place knew I was a good employee, I came out with a warning for something I expected to get sacked over.

If he rolls over theyre going to do what they want and get rid of him with comfort that he will likely do nothing.

Higher up will take notice as they will not want a tribunal and potentially the press involved - I was sacked over a chocolate bar I paid for isnt a great headline.

He did not steal anything, I have often gone round sainsbos and eaten food then paid at the end. Based on the logic of his employer, I should have been locked up and castrated. Theft is only theft if he left the premises. They can not prove he had no intention to pay and as it appears to be standard practice within the store the chances of him losing at a tribunal are minute. Infact I think the actual definition is no intention of paying for it, so he could have actually left the store - although I stand to be corrected as im not in the legal profession.

I think if your friend does not fight their corner they will be out of a job. chances are if the manager wants rid they will find an excuse, but this is one that can be overcome. the other thing is that you do not want anything on your record, I suspect the friend will be in a new job by the end of the year one way or another.