The problem with going the extra mile

bartelbe

There is a story in today's Times about a supermarket employee who was sacked and has now won a case at tribunal for unfair dismissal (not mentioning company's name because I haven't got the same legal budget as the Times, find the original article if you're interested). 

The employee in question worked in a branch notorious for sometimes violent shoplifters. Company procedure was for employers to ask shoplifters to come to the back office and get them off the shop floor. The employee did this, at this point the suspected shoplifter became aggressive and started spitting at the employee. Fearing for his own safety and the safety of customers, the employee restrained the alleged shoplifter, until the police arrive and took the suspected shoplifter away. There was no complaint from the suspected shoplifter about the employees actions.

However 3 month later edited footage of the employee restraining the suspected shoplifter was sent anonymously to the whistle-blowing contact for the supermarket in question. The employee was dismissed for not following company procedure and restraining the suspected shoplifter. Despite no complaint from the suspected shoplifter in question. The employment tribunal ruled that to be an unfair dismissal.

Now this whole case illustrates why I am so cynical about going the extra mile for UK employers. The supermarket in question knew their was a problem with potential violent shoplifters and didn't put on any extra security. The employee put his own safety at risk by taking a potentially violent individual into the back office, following company procedure. He then went the extra mile to protect customers by restraining the suspected shoplifter when they turned violent. The reward for this was being thrown under the bus by the employees employer.

Frankly after hearing about that treatment, if I worked for that company, I would turn a blind eye to thefts. Knowing that if I did intervene, my employer wouldn't back me if the situation escalated.

General_Grant

It certainly seems Tesco did not carry out a proper investigation into the situation and what prompted the "whistle blower".

TELLIT01

The employer has been found to have acted wrongly and the employee will presumably get some form of payout.  I think, and this is a purely person view, that the employee should have let the guy out as soon as he started to get violent.  Employees, at any level, aren't paid to put themselves at risk.

oh_really

bartelbe said:

There is a story in today's Times about a supermarket employee who was sacked and has now won a case at tribunal for unfair dismissal (not mentioning company's name because I haven't got the same legal budget as the Times, find the original article if you're interested). 

Seriously, this is all in public domain...https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/600ec89be90e071434ad0abe/A_El_Gorrou_v_Tesco_Stores_Ltd_-_3200743_2020_-1_Reasons.pdf

General_Grant

TELLIT01 said:

The employer has been found to have acted wrongly and the employee will presumably get some form of payout.  I think, and this is a purely person view, that the employee should have let the guy out as soon as he started to get violent.  Employees, at any level, aren't paid to put themselves at risk.

in the region of £40K

adamp87

. The employee put his own safety at risk by taking a potentially violent individual into the back office, following company procedure.

How is that company procedure? I’ve never ever worked for a company that tells you to do that or that you should put your health at risk in such a situation. It’s a big no-no.

Diamandis

I wouldn't call this going the extra mile at all, just doing something you shouldn't do.

Undervalued

bartelbe said:

There is a story in today's Times about a supermarket employee who was sacked and has now won a case at tribunal for unfair dismissal (not mentioning company's name because I haven't got the same legal budget as the Times, find the original article if you're interested). 

The employee in question worked in a branch notorious for sometimes violent shoplifters. Company procedure was for employers to ask shoplifters to come to the back office and get them off the shop floor. The employee did this, at this point the suspected shoplifter became aggressive and started spitting at the employee. Fearing for his own safety and the safety of customers, the employee restrained the alleged shoplifter, until the police arrive and took the suspected shoplifter away. There was no complaint from the suspected shoplifter about the employees actions.

However 3 month later edited footage of the employee restraining the suspected shoplifter was sent anonymously to the whistle-blowing contact for the supermarket in question. The employee was dismissed for not following company procedure and restraining the suspected shoplifter. Despite no complaint from the suspected shoplifter in question. The employment tribunal ruled that to be an unfair dismissal.

Now this whole case illustrates why I am so cynical about going the extra mile for UK employers. The supermarket in question knew their was a problem with potential violent shoplifters and didn't put on any extra security. The employee put his own safety at risk by taking a potentially violent individual into the back office, following company procedure. He then went the extra mile to protect customers by restraining the suspected shoplifter when they turned violent. The reward for this was being thrown under the bus by the employees employer.

Frankly after hearing about that treatment, if I worked for that company, I would turn a blind eye to thefts. Knowing that if I did intervene, my employer wouldn't back me if the situation escalated.

I have not read the article but, based on the details you have outlined, I am surprised the supermarket lost this case!

It may well be that although disciplinary action was justified, it should have led to a lesser penalty than dismissal (which couldn't then be challenged at an employment tribunal).

Whilst it can be lawful to use the minimum necessary force to detain somebody reasonably suspected of committing an arrestable offence, it is fraught with legal pitfalls. Unless the employee works in a job where they have received specific training for such circumstances (e.g. "security") then I can well understand an employer having a policy prohibiting such action.

It seems the employer did have such a policy and the employee choose not to follow it. That is always grounds for disciplinary action and the employee's good intentions are, at best, only mitigation.

On this occasion it seems the employee was at least correct in their suspicions that a crime had taken place. However, what if they were wrong? Would you still expect the employer to back them regardless just because they were well intentioned?

TBagpuss

Undervalued said:

I have not read the article but, based on the details you have outlined, I am surprised the supermarket lost this case!

It may well be that although disciplinary action was justified, it should have led to a lesser penalty than dismissal (which couldn't then be challenged at an employment tribunal).

Whilst it can be lawful to use the minimum necessary force to detain somebody reasonably suspected of committing an arrestable offence, it is fraught with legal pitfalls. Unless the employee works in a job where they have received specific training for such circumstances (e.g. "security") then I can well understand an employer having a policy prohibiting such action.

It seems the employer did have such a policy and the employee choose not to follow it. That is always grounds for disciplinary action and the employee's good intentions are, at best, only mitigation.

On this occasion it seems the employee was at least correct in their suspicions that a crime had taken place. However, what if they were wrong? Would you still expect the employer to back them regardless just because they were well intentioned?

The details outlined are misleading. 

The incident happened when the shoplifter became aggressive after the employee had (following policy) taken them into a back office to give them  a banning letter and/or call the police. At that point they had what appeared to be a weapon.
The store had no policy dictating how a worker should act in that scenario, as the guidance was simply not to seek to approach or restrain a suspected shoplifter on the shop floor , if they felt there was a risk they might be violent. It was impossible for the employee to follow policy as it had been claimed they should, because the policy said that employees should not approach a shoplifter if they thought s/he might be violent, and once you have followed the procedure for non-violent shoplifters of inviting them into the back office to give them a banning letter and/or call police, it's clearly impossible to not approach them! 

In addition, the incident was brought to the employers attention by separate employee who also made false and malicious allegations of theft against the worker, and who had deliberately and obviously provided a limited and out-of-context clip from CCTV, which didn't show the build up the incident. 

The dismissal was unfair because:

• The employee did not fail to follow procedure, (the store had no policy for the situation he found himself in, the policy he was accused of breaking related to what to do when a shoplifter was seen on the shop floor, and he had followed that policy)
• the employees acted reasonably to defend himself and others, in a scenario where there was an immediate threat to him and others
• the employer failed to take into account the clearly malicious and partial nature of the information given to them
• the employer failed to take into account the employees long service and excellent prior record 
• the employer failed to take into account he evidence of a second employee who witnessed the incident and confirmed that the shoplifter had become aggressive.

molerat

When I worked in retail the policy was to not apprehend them but ensure they left the premises as quickly as possible with as little stock as possible.  Shoplifting was seen as just another business cost.  We were pulled up by senior management for locking high loss items behind glass and told that would lower sales of those items even though with some of those items we lost more through theft than we sold.

Undervalued

TBagpuss said:

Undervalued said:

I have not read the article but, based on the details you have outlined, I am surprised the supermarket lost this case!

It may well be that although disciplinary action was justified, it should have led to a lesser penalty than dismissal (which couldn't then be challenged at an employment tribunal).

Whilst it can be lawful to use the minimum necessary force to detain somebody reasonably suspected of committing an arrestable offence, it is fraught with legal pitfalls. Unless the employee works in a job where they have received specific training for such circumstances (e.g. "security") then I can well understand an employer having a policy prohibiting such action.

It seems the employer did have such a policy and the employee choose not to follow it. That is always grounds for disciplinary action and the employee's good intentions are, at best, only mitigation.

On this occasion it seems the employee was at least correct in their suspicions that a crime had taken place. However, what if they were wrong? Would you still expect the employer to back them regardless just because they were well intentioned?

The details outlined are misleading. 

The incident happened when the shoplifter became aggressive after the employee had (following policy) taken them into a back office to give them  a banning letter and/or call the police. At that point they had what appeared to be a weapon.
The store had no policy dictating how a worker should act in that scenario, as the guidance was simply not to seek to approach or restrain a suspected shoplifter on the shop floor , if they felt there was a risk they might be violent. It was impossible for the employee to follow policy as it had been claimed they should, because the policy said that employees should not approach a shoplifter if they thought s/he might be violent, and once you have followed the procedure for non-violent shoplifters of inviting them into the back office to give them a banning letter and/or call police, it's clearly impossible to not approach them! 

In addition, the incident was brought to the employers attention by separate employee who also made false and malicious allegations of theft against the worker, and who had deliberately and obviously provided a limited and out-of-context clip from CCTV, which didn't show the build up the incident. 

The dismissal was unfair because:

• The employee did not fail to follow procedure, (the store had no policy for the situation he found himself in, the policy he was accused of breaking related to what to do when a shoplifter was seen on the shop floor, and he had followed that policy)
• the employees acted reasonably to defend himself and others, in a scenario where there was an immediate threat to him and others
• the employer failed to take into account the clearly malicious and partial nature of the information given to them
• the employer failed to take into account the employees long service and excellent prior record 
• the employer failed to take into account he evidence of a second employee who witnessed the incident and confirmed that the shoplifter had become aggressive.

Thanks for the clarification.

Clearly the shop's policy should have been clearer, although surely it is reasonable that the shop floor policy should extend, as far as is possible, to the whole of the premises? The employee, or their lawyer, seems to have made good use of a loophole which will no doubt be tightened for the future.

My main point remains that it is very unwise for any employee, without special training, to attempt to forcibly detain a suspect. It is perfectly reasonable (sensible) for an employer to have a policy prohibiting this course of action and to discipline any employee who breaches the policy without exceptional mitigating circumstances.