Dismissal for Gross Misconduct (Theft)

goater78

It does seem a bit strange to sack them straight away. Would have thought he would have been instantly suspended and removed from the site and then sacked for gross misconduct within days via a fast tracked disciplinary procedure. 

MattMattMattUK

goater78 said:

It does seem a bit strange to sack them straight away. Would have thought he would have been instantly suspended and removed from the site and then sacked for gross misconduct within days via a fast tracked disciplinary procedure. 

Summary dismissal for gross misconduct with overwhelming evidence and an admission of guilt means there is not need for a fast tracked disciplinary procedure, it could be written up in half an hour before you throw them off the premises. 

goater78

MattMattMattUK said:

goater78 said:

It does seem a bit strange to sack them straight away. Would have thought he would have been instantly suspended and removed from the site and then sacked for gross misconduct within days via a fast tracked disciplinary procedure. 

Summary dismissal for gross misconduct with overwhelming evidence and an admission of guilt means there is not need for a fast tracked disciplinary procedure, it could be written up in half an hour before you throw them off the premises. 

It took a week after being found guilty for Wayne Couzans to be sacked for gross misconduct so it can’t be that easy. 

Dakta

I actually think this is an interesting question, and I echo some of goaters thoughts here.

If he's guilty, and has admitted it - his job is pretty much gone and there will be little recourse, that's a given - however there is a valid question about process here, and I'm not sure of the answer.

I would have thought, if suspected of theft - you would be suspended (with immediate effect) taken from the premises. If the person admits to it then there is no real need for an investigation and a disciplinary should be straightforward. This will give the company the chance to document the case, give the employee a chance to respond, defend their case/provide a mitigation and then be dismissed instantly if appropriate.

By doing it the way this company seems to have, is they've gone straight to instant dismissal (notice I'm not calling it summary dismissal as this would normally be instant and without notice following a disciplinary, where this is instant without a disciplinary). This seems to prevent the employee the time to review the allegations, the evidence against him and therefore hasn't had much opportunity or time to put forth their own side or arguments,

This for me is the sticky point, because most sources I can find caveat instant dismissal as 'instant after following a fair investigation and going through the disciplinary process' - if gross misconduct is found then dismissal can be instant. Is there any situation where evidence can be considered strong enough to be able to prevent an employee from putting their own case forward? 

I'm not totally sure here but my gut feel is that the company has put itself in a grey, and potentially risky area by doing this the way it has.

 

Marcon

Dakta said:

I actually think this is an interesting question, and I echo some of goaters thoughts here.

If he's guilty, and has admitted it - his job is pretty much gone and there will be little recourse, that's a given - however there is a valid question about process here, and I'm not sure of the answer.

I'm not totally sure here but my gut feel is that the company has put itself in a grey, and potentially risky area by doing this the way it has.

 

As you've twice admitted in the answer above, you aren't sure. Might be better not to speculate when a situation is quite as clear as this one (a rarity, but it happens).

Exactly what risk do you believe the employer is running? The employer spotted something amiss, confronted the employee and the employee admitted they had been stealing. Admitting guilt more than confirms that the employer's belief is 'reasonable' and they can summarily dismiss. Faffing around with 'due process' or some such (a) won't add anything to the evidence needed and (b) certainly won't change the outcome.

Dakta

It's a discussion forum so I'll post if I wish. 

Secondly, I've asked for advice here before and I've been given it incorrectly by pople who were very sure of themselves, so I will take the devils advocate stance as and where I see fit. Questioning those who reckon they know has produced favourable outcomes over accepting what I've been told on here,

I see the question as an interesting one from a legal and procedural perspective - hence my response.

If you've an issue - You will have to get over this independently

I have searched quite a large number of resources - one law firm indicartes theft is a reason you can sack without a hearing but a lot of sources also aren't clear and refer to instant dismissal in the context of dismissed without notice etc as a result of a disciplinary finding.

I am not saying this will change the outcome, but everyone has a right to a defence, and I'm interested in knowing if - in fact of employment law - a situation can exist where this is not the case from what I've researched, I have doubts.

No matter how guilty you are, you've a right to the correct process.

lanternsfour

There is only a limited risk to the employer of a finding of unfair dismissal if they have solid evidence of theft and the employee then admits it when confronted, and even if successful it is unlikely to be worth taking to a tribunal because your friend’s misconduct would reduce any compensation. 

A sacking for gross misconduct can be immediate providing a fair process has been followed, and by admitting the theft, the employee has essentially also admitted what in any job would constitute gross misconduct. 

Therefore a fair procedure has probably already been followed: company looked into matter; gave employee chance to response; he admitted it. I have assume there were witnesses to that confession and it has been recorded on file by the employer. 

If the employer were being more cautious, they might have set up another meeting and remind the employee there he has confessed etc, then sack him. And had the employee not confessed, I agree there might need to be more of a process. But I can’t see a tribunal much interested, especially if in the interim your friend has been reported to the police and perhaps convicted of stealing. If I were him I would, as others have said, be much more worried about that than the possibility of very minimal compensation for not having had an extra week or two technically on the books before he was sacked as a formality. 

It would likely be a quite low payout in these circumstances even if successful — tribunals have discretion to reduce unfair dismissal compensation for wrongdoing and stealing is a very straightforward example of that. An attempt to try to negotiate a week or two’s pay might be successful in some gross misconduct cases but with the risk of being reported to the police, I doubt it’s worth trying personally, and many employers would simply respond: “see you in court” (the tribunal or the magistrates’, or both) if an employee who stole for them tried that on. 

In short, if your friend finds himself with zero pay from the point he admitted stealing but doesn’t end up with a criminal conviction and a fine or worse, he’s a lucky man. 

Undervalued

Dakta said:

I actually think this is an interesting question, and I echo some of goaters thoughts here.

If he's guilty, and has admitted it - his job is pretty much gone and there will be little recourse, that's a given - however there is a valid question about process here, and I'm not sure of the answer.

I would have thought, if suspected of theft - you would be suspended (with immediate effect) taken from the premises. If the person admits to it then there is no real need for an investigation and a disciplinary should be straightforward. This will give the company the chance to document the case, give the employee a chance to respond, defend their case/provide a mitigation and then be dismissed instantly if appropriate.

By doing it the way this company seems to have, is they've gone straight to instant dismissal (notice I'm not calling it summary dismissal as this would normally be instant and without notice following a disciplinary, where this is instant without a disciplinary). This seems to prevent the employee the time to review the allegations, the evidence against him and therefore hasn't had much opportunity or time to put forth their own side or arguments,

This for me is the sticky point, because most sources I can find caveat instant dismissal as 'instant after following a fair investigation and going through the disciplinary process' - if gross misconduct is found then dismissal can be instant. Is there any situation where evidence can be considered strong enough to be able to prevent an employee from putting their own case forward? 

I'm not totally sure here but my gut feel is that the company has put itself in a grey, and potentially risky area by doing this the way it has.

 

Then I would refer you to the post I made at around 9am yesterday morning (page one, about the 8th or 9th post in this thread) which answers your question.

JReacher1

Undervalued said:

Dakta said:

I actually think this is an interesting question, and I echo some of goaters thoughts here.

If he's guilty, and has admitted it - his job is pretty much gone and there will be little recourse, that's a given - however there is a valid question about process here, and I'm not sure of the answer.

I would have thought, if suspected of theft - you would be suspended (with immediate effect) taken from the premises. If the person admits to it then there is no real need for an investigation and a disciplinary should be straightforward. This will give the company the chance to document the case, give the employee a chance to respond, defend their case/provide a mitigation and then be dismissed instantly if appropriate.

By doing it the way this company seems to have, is they've gone straight to instant dismissal (notice I'm not calling it summary dismissal as this would normally be instant and without notice following a disciplinary, where this is instant without a disciplinary). This seems to prevent the employee the time to review the allegations, the evidence against him and therefore hasn't had much opportunity or time to put forth their own side or arguments,

This for me is the sticky point, because most sources I can find caveat instant dismissal as 'instant after following a fair investigation and going through the disciplinary process' - if gross misconduct is found then dismissal can be instant. Is there any situation where evidence can be considered strong enough to be able to prevent an employee from putting their own case forward? 

I'm not totally sure here but my gut feel is that the company has put itself in a grey, and potentially risky area by doing this the way it has.

 

Then I would refer you to the post I made at around 9am yesterday morning (page one, about the 8th or 9th post in this thread) which answers your question.

It only answers their question if they believe what you have posted. Despite a clever use of the bold feature there is no evidence or links to back up what you have stated. As such it is just your opinion 😉

It’s very dangerous for people to take at face value information posted on a forum that doesn’t have any links or evidence to provide confirmation this information is correct. 

prowla

According to the Government (https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds ), the employer should:

With gross misconduct, you can dismiss the employee immediately as long as you follow a fair procedure. You should investigate the incident and give the employee a chance to respond before deciding to dismiss them.

I would suggest that, according to the anecdotal evidence in the OP, the incident was investigated and the employee was given the chance to respond, which they did by admitting the theft.