My neighbor got sacked

[Deleted User]

duchy wrote: »

Who is going to employ a self confessed thief ?

People sacked for dishonesty do not always end up on the Dole for the rest of their lives. However, I agree that employment prospects will be limited.

Basically, only the "neighbour" will know whether or not she is guilty and also the actual evidence the supermarket may or may not have accumulated. If she is guilty and the evidence is compelling, then pleading innocence will only result in a harsher sentence. If she is not guilty, then she alone must decide if it's worth defending her integrity.

patman99

They want her to plead guilty so they can give her a Police caution. This saves on Court time.
Tell her to plead not guilty and let the ex-employer make themselves look stupid in Court.

If (when) she wins, she can then go after the supermarket for sacking her for a crime she did not commit.

ohreally

The police have their own agenda, she would be advised to obtain legal advice.

Was she a union member?

sangie595

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Oh dear. That's quite an assumption based only on a (one-sided) account of what apparently happened in one supermarket.
I have no idea whether the Supermarket have sacked an innocent person, but neither do I know for certain that the person was guilty.

I think your "advice" might be better posted on the Praise Vent and Warnings forum;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82

Quite. Supermarkets do not routinely dismiss employees of long standing because the till is down once. So whatever the truth is, there is more to this story than appears here. The OP may not know the truth. And, frankly, the police do not get involved over a couple of quid down on a till that loads of people have access to. I'm not a huge fan of the police either, and rarely trust much they say, but something here sounds "wrong".

If she wants advice she should post herself. I would be most uncomfortable about suggesting that she go to court or claim unfair dismissal on so little information from a third party.

[Deleted User]

Joeblogs wrote: »

She says she didn't do it so I can't understand why she being advised by the police to admit to it

Better for their statistics perhaps? - Crime Solved Rate

Guest101

Sleazy wrote: »

Better for their statistics perhaps? - Crime Solved Rate

Theft statistics are so terrible, one case won't matter

[Deleted User]

Guest101 wrote: »

Theft statistics are so terrible, one case won't matter

Not on it's own.
Similarly, one vote may not matter in an election or referendum, but taken collectively they do count. If 33 million (ish) people had all said "my vote doesn't matter" on June 23rd, nobody would have voted on Brexit .....

Voyager2002

Sleazy wrote: »

If 33 million (ish) people had all said "my vote doesn't matter" on June 23rd, nobody would have voted on Brexit .....

And then the pound would have been worth as much now as it was last year...

sangie595

Sleazy wrote: »

Better for their statistics perhaps? - Crime Solved Rate

Possibly. It happens. It also happens that people are guilty of low level crime and it is better for them to not end up in a court room.

I'd still like to hear from the person themselves and not a "neighbour" or "friend". There is a logical inconsistency in sacking one person who has more than two years of employment over a minor till discrepancy, to say nothing of calling the police, when it could have been committed by any one of several people if it existed at all and wasn't a mistake by someone. Called to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, the employer needs something in the way of evidence to justify sacking one person and not everyone who might possibly have done this. And they must know that.

Mr.Generous

patman99 wrote: »

They want her to plead guilty so they can give her a Police caution. This saves on Court time.
Tell her to plead not guilty and let the ex-employer make themselves look stupid in Court.

If (when) she wins, she can then go after the supermarket for sacking her for a crime she did not commit.

you need to understand the difference between employment law and criminal law, they need reason to doubt her integrity to sack her, If the decision falls within the bands of reasonable outcomes and employer has clear fair employment policies and has followed them its a fair dismissal. Court will require beyond reasonable doubt.

I would imagine the shortage is either a large sum of money - so they can't accept the risk of it happening again, or one of a series of incidents and your neighbor isn't telling you the whole story.