Suspended for apparent work theft

sangie595

ACG wrote: »

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. Of course they are going to lie. Managers do lie. If they weren't prepared to they wouldn't have gone even this far.

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. Nobody cares about a tribunal. There is never any publicity either - tribunals simply aren't of general interest, and certainly not ones like this.

He did not steal anything, I have often gone round sainsbos and eaten food then paid at the end. And if you had been stopped by a store detective you would have been in rouble. You could not prove that you intended to pay. Based on the logic of his employer, I should have been locked up and castrated. Theft is only theft if he left the premises. No it isn't. Theft is the intention to deprive. Leaving the premises has nothing to do with it. Eating it indicates that the employer was deprived of their bar of chocolate, which had not been paid for. He is still left with having to prove he intended to pay for it. They can not prove he had no intention to pay They don't need to prove it and as it appears to be standard practice within the store For which he will need evidence, and as I said, that will require witnesses who will testify to that and risk their jobs as a consequencethe chances of him losing at a tribunal are minute I doubt that very much. 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.

I agree that if a manager wants someone out, they will find a way. But I don't think your strategy is going to be effective unless there are witnesses willing to put themselves on the line for him. It's great to see people being selfless like that, but in my experience it doesn't happen very often. Without those witnesses, it doesn't happen at all - the managers don't permit it (and I would be surprised if there isn't company policy that says the same thing). And a tribunal is going to accept the employers view on this. The price of the item taken and not paid for at the time isn't relevant. If the employers defence is that it isn't done and it isn't accepted practice, then only witnesses to the contrary can suggest otherwise. And stepping forward and saying that you have done the same thing will land you in the same position. The management defence is that they were not aware of other instances, but now that they have become aware they will deal with them similarly.

Malthusian

Kowtow three times and say he won't do it again and take his medicine (probably a warning) is almost certainly the best way of keeping the job.

No-one is going to join a worker revolt and put their job on the line for someone because they couldn't wait a few hours to have a bar of chocolate.

If the workplace is as bad as you say, then the managers will not sack someone and have to find someone else willing to put up with their excrement over a bar of chocolate.

ACG wrote:

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.

If they admit that it happens and that they themselves take items without paying (when required), then they are putting their jobs at massive risk as they are openly admitting at best having a lackadaiscal attitude to the store's property and at worst filching stock. If they pretend it doesn't happen and it's a rogue employee and they have now clamped down, they are putting their jobs at the very remote risk that any of their line managers care enough to dig into a trivial issue.

ACG

He did not steal anything, I have often gone round sainsbos and eaten food then paid at the end. And if you had been stopped by a store detective you would have been in rouble. You could not prove that you intended to pay.

And they could not prove I did not intend to pay. Innocent until proven guilty still stnds in this country.

esuhl

"Theft" is the act of taking property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of such property. The chocolate was offered for sale. The bloke who took it had no intention of depriving the shop of it without fulfilling the implied terms of sale.

This is really quite a ridiculous situation. I'd suggest to the management that they drop the case and make it clear how they expect such matters to be handled in future (presumably all goods should be paid for before consumption). That way everyone will know what's expected of them.

daytona0

ACG wrote: »

And they could not prove I did not intend to pay. Innocent until proven guilty still stnds in this country.

The problem you have is with the formation of contracts....

It basically works like this:

1. The shop displays their goods and quotes a price.

2. You either accept or decline the price.

3. If you accept the price, you approach the till and make an offer to the shop to pay X for your chocolate bar.

4. The shop considers your offer and either accepts it or declines it.

5. If accepted, a contract of sale is formed. If declined (as with alcohol sales sometimes!), they tell you to jog on.

So if you go in and eat the chocolate bar then you are stealing Even if you were going to pay! Because you are depriving the shop of the right to decline your offer for it. What if they turn round and say "no, actually I do not want to sell you a chocolate bar, as I am not obliged to" what do you do then?

daytona0

esuhl wrote: »

"Theft" is the act of taking property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of such property.

Oh yea, tell that to the gits who robbed my motorbike to nip through the Mersey tunnel on a Saturday night and ditched it in the park so that the police could pick it up in the early hours of the morning. To their credit they didn't "permanently deprive" me, but it was theft

ACG

daytona0 wrote: »

The problem you have is with the formation of contracts....

It basically works like this:

1. The shop displays their goods and quotes a price.

2. You either accept or decline the price.

3. If you accept the price, you approach the till and make an offer to the shop to pay X for your chocolate bar.

4. The shop considers your offer and either accepts it or declines it.

5. If accepted, a contract of sale is formed. If declined (as with alcohol sales sometimes!), they tell you to jog on.

So if you go in and eat the chocolate bar then you are stealing Even if you were going to pay! Because you are depriving the shop of the right to decline your offer for it. What if they turn round and say "no, actually I do not want to sell you a chocolate bar, as I am not obliged to" what do you do then?

Go to the press and shout discrimination. Were talking about a bar of chocolate, not alcohol.

Im out, this thread is becoming ridiculous.

Contract law over a bar of chocolate that never left the building, where the employee followed common practice with no warning that practice had changed. Good luck to the manager on that one if the employee takes this to the paper or files a grievance.

daytona0

ACG wrote: »

Im out, this thread is becoming ridiculous.

Before you go, don't forget to pay

[Deleted User]

I am not saying what the employer is doing is right.., the chocolate was paid for in the end.., but the employee was daft to take a chocolate bar (not essential to life) and eat it without paying in advance.

The problem is, however much other people do it, there is a chance he could have 'forgotten' to pay etc. Its just not worth doing this for the sake of a chocolate bar. He could have gone to get the money first.

I agree. All he can do is apologise intensely, but point out that while he didn't follow correct procedure (for which he's very sorry) there was no intention of theft as shown by the fact that he did pay. And it will never ever happen again.

It won't help if he goes into the politics of the situation. Avoid that at all costs.

Then I'd be looking for another job asap. It doesn't sound like a good place to work, although I know working unpaid overtime is a common practise in these places.

Magnolia

daytona0 wrote: »

To their credit they didn't "permanently deprive" me, but it was theft

Isn't this a different offence of TWOC'ING?