gross misconduct - need advice for a friend.

jobbingmusician

montyrebel said:

theft is theft

Agreed.  Theft is theft.  But I don't for a moment think this was theft, unless it happened several times.  The Theft Act 1968 says

'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly'

I think the police are unlikely to get involved, and very likely to laugh at this case if the employer tried to involve them.  Your friend needs to show contrition, explain why they could not/did not pay in advance, and argue that s/he simply forgot to pay at the end of the day.  There are no guarantees what the employer will do, but worrying about the police is a step too far, in my opinion!  (Although I don't like the bit where you say 'majority of the time the items were paid for the following day'.  What's the reason for not paying for ALL the items the following day?)

KatrinaWaves

jobbingmusician said:

montyrebel said:

theft is theft

Agreed.  Theft is theft.  But I don't for a moment think this was theft, unless it happened several times.  The Theft Act 1968 says

'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly'

I think the police are unlikely to get involved, and very likely to laugh at this case if the employer tried to involve them.  Your friend needs to show contrition, explain why they could not/did not pay in advance, and argue that s/he simply forgot to pay at the end of the day.  There are no guarantees what the employer will do, but worrying about the police is a step too far, in my opinion!  (Although I don't like the bit where you say 'majority of the time the items were paid for the following day'.  What's the reason for not paying for ALL the items the following day?)

Again, it has been said that there are multiple occasions where the items were not paid for at all.

That is theft. It did happen several times as the OP has already stated. 

Takeaway_Addict

jobbingmusician said:

montyrebel said:

theft is theft

Agreed.  Theft is theft.  But I don't for a moment think this was theft, unless it happened several times.  The Theft Act 1968 says

'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly'

I think the police are unlikely to get involved, and very likely to laugh at this case if the employer tried to involve them.  Your friend needs to show contrition, explain why they could not/did not pay in advance, and argue that s/he simply forgot to pay at the end of the day.  There are no guarantees what the employer will do, but worrying about the police is a step too far, in my opinion!  (Although I don't like the bit where you say 'majority of the time the items were paid for the following day'.  What's the reason for not paying for ALL the items the following day?)

They've admitted its happened several times. 

TBagpuss

krusty101 said:

RichardD1970 said:

krusty101 said:

Has he considered resigning before any disciplinary?

Even if he did the reference could still say "resigned whilst suspended/under investigation".

I’ve never seen that and would never put that. I’m not in the business of stopping someone get another job (unless they’d abused and were going into another care role for example) - strange organisation that does that. Better just to leave it blank. 

Possibly you haven't seen it as most people would not chose to give someone as a reference if they knew there was a risk it would be disclosed.

Employers have to be honest in any reference they give., and could be liable if they are are not. It's why many nowadays just confirm employment dates rather than giving more detail.

Turn it the other way round and it can be seen less as 'stopping someone getting a job' and more as 'making sure a new employer knows what they are getting into'  or 'stopping a bad or dishonest employee lying to get a new job'
It's a personal choice of course, but it is something which can perfectly legitimately be said.
Personally, if I am asked to provide a reference I think about whether this is something I would want to know, if I were taking on the employee. Someone resigning while under investigation for theft? I would absolutely want to know that and I don't think it is remotely unreasonable for an employer to include that information if they are asked for a reference.  

MgComp

The new policy was created for a reason i.e. the shop owner or manager was getting fed up of employees taking stock and getting away without paying often. Probably would have been wise to either avoid this totally by bringing in his own food to work OR being completely sure he has paid (obviously the subject has a problem doing this in the past as stated in OP).

Wouldn't be surprised if they were fired but as others have said i dont think this will be escalated as other members of staff seem to do similar things