Suspended for apparent work theft

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

ACG wrote: »

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.

Frankly, I would be happy to see anyone who eats things while going round a supermarket imprisoned for life, whether they intended to pay or not. I am shopping for food. I don't want to see you or your children stuffing chocolate in your mouths and dribbling over everything, then handling things and putting them back on the shelf. Act like an adult, and wait until you get out of the shop at least.

I'd also happily see anyone who uses abbreviations like "Sainsbos" locked up for ever, but that could just be me.

DCFC79

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Frankly, I would be happy to see anyone who eats things while going round a supermarket imprisoned for life, whether they intended to pay or not. I am shopping for food. I don't want to see you or your children stuffing chocolate in your mouths and dribbling over everything, then handling things and putting them back on the shelf. Act like an adult, and wait until you get out of the shop at least.

I'd also happily see anyone who uses abbreviations like "Sainsbos" locked up for ever, but that could just be me.

I whole hearted agree with you but unfortunately there's folk out there who eat/drink items and put the empty wrapper on the shelf but don't pay for it.

JJG

daytona0 wrote: »

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

That's actually taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner which is a separate offence to theft.

YouAsked

Does it really matter whether the action meets the *legal* definition of theft? The company may have its own anti-theft policy with protocols in which the OP's colleague has violated.

VintageBelle

Thanks everyone. I'll show her this thread and she can maybe relay the advice to him and then obviously it's up to him how to proceed.


If they treated their staff fairly I would have a very different opinion but they only seem to do things like this when it suits them. They don't follow their own codes of practice etc they just use them when they want to.


I genuinely can't wait til she leaves that place but it fits around her studies at the moment.


Thanks for the info

Undervalued

YouAsked wrote: »

Does it really matter whether the action meets the *legal* definition of theft? The company may have its own anti-theft policy with protocols in which the OP's colleague has violated.

Exactly.

The only possible difference is that theft, in pretty much any employment situation, would be considered gross misconduct.

A breach of policy / protocol which did not amount to theft may not, in itself, be gross misconduct.

daytona0

Magnolia wrote: »

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

Hmm fair enough!

Then I change my point ever so slightly The chocolate bar issue which precipitated my example is thus also a TWOC issue