Hubby suspended for theft..

[deathbycrayons]

Thank you. Should he quote this? Also should he state today that he feels that he is only guilty of not having a receipt, and for them to dismiss him for theft or even suspected theft would be illegal.

[electron99]

PLEASE take the advice of scousegeezer and others. They HAVE to prove their case, not your husband proving his innocence. If they instantly dismiss him, he has more than adequate grounds for an E.T.

 

Look at it this way.Some of their stores sell clothing. If he is wearing their socks to the meeting, will he be told that unless he can produce a receipt, he will be presumed to have stolen them.All this is so rediculous.

 

Tell your husband to go to the meeting and say the barest mininimum.Do not volunteer any information they don't know, or think they know.

[scousegeezer]

Deathby crayons,

Yes I think he should mention all of that and also state his intention of unfair dismissal if the do dismiss him. Quote the law to them , let them know that he is aware of the law and his rights in law. I would also say that it is unreasonable for them to tell staff to keep receipts about their person for un unspecified length of time. I have stuff in the kitchen cupboard that is months old. If I wre employed would I be expected to produce a receipt two months after purchase - IMPOSSIBLE.

Sorry I have to go to work now , best of luck will catch up with this when I get home.

 

Best of luck, will be thinking about you throughout the day. BE STRONG.

 

Cheers - Scpousegezzer

[andie_303]

What astounds me is the whole thing about having to have a receipt anyway - what if a relative had bought them and left them in your house and your husband picked them up and went to work with them? How would he be expected to produce the receipt.

 

They are assuming he MUST have bought or stolen them

 

There is nothing to say someone else did not buy them and give them to your hubby and that is why they would neither have a receipt or transaction record on his card - that is not illegal last time I checked.

[deathbycrayons]

What astounds me is the whole thing about having to have a receipt anyway - what if a relative had bought them and left them in your house and your husband picked them up and went to work with them? How would he be expected to produce the receipt.

 

They are assuming he MUST have bought or stolen them

 

There is nothing to say someone else did not buy them and give them to your hubby and that is why they would neither have a receipt or transaction record on his card - that is not illegal last time I checked.

 

The manager lied in his statement. He made it look like Bob was guilty, by using sentences such as 'the sweets were clearly cut with a case knife from the warehouse' and 'Bob's face looked worried and caught out'.

[andie_303]

The manager lied in his statement. He made it look like Bob was guilty, by using sentences such as 'the sweets were clearly cut with a case knife from the warehouse' and 'Bob's face looked worried and caught out'.

 

Wow what a great forensics expert he must be to be able to confidently assert that tool marks come from a tool in the warehouse - wow the metropolitan police are missing out on some talent here!!!

 

Joking aside I would challenge the validity of such a witness statement as I would not belive that is allowed to be admitted as "evidence" becasue the statements cannot be proved.

 

I would seriously doubt that such a statement would be allowed by most companies let alone relied on as their sole piece of evidence!

[deathbycrayons]

Oh I forgot to add - the manager let the witness see his statement the night before the hearing and the witness statement is very similar.

[mariefab]

the manager let the witness see his statement the night before the hearing and the witness statement is very similar.

 

Do you mean that the manager showed the witness his own statement before the witness wrote his witness statement!

 

If so, how do you know this?

[deathbycrayons]

the manager let the witness see his statement the night before the hearing and the witness statement is very similar.

 

Do you mean that the manager showed the witness his own statement before the witness wrote his witness statement!

 

If so, how do you know this?

 

Yes the manager told the personell manager to make sure that the witness got a copy of his statement. The union rep HEARD him saying this. The manager of course denied saying this when questioned after the hearing.

[mariefab]

Have you or your OH spoken to the witness?

Will he confirm that he saw the manager's statement before he wrote his own statement?

[deathbycrayons]

He's not allowed to speak to the witness....

We'll try and get the union rep to speak to him to confirm this.

Edited September 25, 2009 by deathbycrayons
Info added..

[mariefab]

He's not allowed to speak to the witness....

 

Oh really?

But it's perfectly acceptable for the manager to make the witness aware of what is in his own statement, thus suggesting what he should also write?

 

I think that this should definitely be brought up at the hearing and if possible the person who is holding the meeting should call in the witness in order to question him on these points.

The witness may be feeling pressured into backing up the manager at the moment. But, if he realises that he may have to appear at a Tribunal in the future he may decide that there is a limit to the extent to which he is prepared to lie for the manager.

Edited September 25, 2009 by mariefab
spelling

[deathbycrayons]

From the company staff handbook:

 

"Theft, unauthorised possession or unauthorised use of company property (including the unauthorised consumption of food and drink including damaged, discarded or time expired goods) will be treated by the company as gross misconduct. Subject to the company's disciplinary procedure, this will normally lead to summary dismissal without notice and with loss of accrued benefits and holiday pay over and above your statutory entitlement".

[mariefab]

Also from the company staff handbook:

 

All checks will be carried out discreetly and you can be accompanied by a work colleague of your choice if you so request, although it will not be a reason to delay the check that the chosen representative is not present, or will not be present, within a reasonable time. There will always be two members of management conducting the check, with at least one manager of the same sex as the employee being checked.

 

Emptying pockets onto the till 1 area doesn't seem particularly discreet to me.

 

Was the witness another manager?

 

Is there, by any chance, a clause in the company staff handbook that states:

We reserve the right to enforce or ignore any clause in this handbook to suit our own convenience.

What are your rights at work Follow this link to read the review of the Guide to your Rights at work, published by Lawpack

[Bookworm]

But it's NOT company property.

 

It's YOUR property. You bought it, he used it.

 

THEY are making the assumption that because they're their branded goods, then DH must have stolen then, which is a mighty jump to conclusions. The point is the staff handbook part you quote is completely irrelevant to this particular incident.

 

Work on the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

 

You guys bought the stuff the way you do most of your shopping.

DH took some of the stuff to work a few days or even maybe weeks later, the way he does with other stuff, be sandwiches or as above mentioned, possibly socks, tissues, paracetamol, etc... Nothing sinister about thatm and a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

 

Stick to your guns that he did nothing wrong. It is for THEM to prove otherwise and they can not. But wouldn't it be great for them if they could get your husband to hang himself instead or even to quit in disgust?

 

If they DO dismiss him on that flimsy scenario, he will have a near enough cast-iron case to win an employment tribunal, so make sure he doesn't deviate one inch from the script.

 

"This was shopping we bought weeks ago. Up to you to prove otherwise. "

 

That's ALL he has to do, stick to his guns and shut up the rest of the time.

 

All the best.

[mariefab]

Bookworm's post above is excellent advice.

 

I'd just make one tiny amendment:

"This was shopping we bought some time ago, I don't know exactly when. Up to you to prove otherwise. "

[deathbycrayons]

Also from the company staff handbook:

 

All checks will be carried out discreetly and you can be accompanied by a work colleague of your choice if you so request, although it will not be a reason to delay the check that the chosen representative is not present, or will not be present, within a reasonable time. There will always be two members of management conducting the check, with at least one manager of the same sex as the employee being checked.

 

Emptying pockets onto the till 1 area doesn't seem particularly discreet to me.

 

Was the witness another manager?

 

Is there, by any chance, a clause in the company staff handbook that states:

We reserve the right to enforce or ignore any clause in this handbook to suit our own convenience.

What are your rights at work Follow this link to read the review of the Guide to your Rights at work, published by Lawpack

 

Yes the witness was another manager. I can't seem to access that link.

[mariefab]

Sorry,It's not a link that I added, it's a forum thingy.

[deathbycrayons]

It looks like we have a really good case doesn't it

[deathbycrayons]

I've thrown this together for his statement today:

 

Company policy states:

 

"You may use any till, however the till receipt must always be retained with your shopping untill it is taken from the store."

 

The sweets were brought in from home.

 

Company policy also states:

 

"All checks will be carried out discreetly and you can be accompanied by a work colleague of your choice if you so request, although it will not be a reason to delay the check that the chosen representative is not present, or will not be present, within a reasonable time. There will always be two members of management conducting the check, with at least one manager of the same sex as the employee being checked".

 

Emptying pockets onto the till 1 area doesn't seem particularly discreet to me.

 

It's NOT company property.

 

It's MY property. I bought it, I used it.

 

They are making the assumption that because they're their branded goods, then I must have stolen them, which is a mighty jump to conclusions, and in my opinion and legal advisor's opinion, the manager is deliberately victimizing me and I have no doubt the manager's attempt at constructive dissmissal.

 

The store stating that you have to prove that you bought them is an illegal presumption. I do not care who they are - they cannot reverse the law. It is an irrebuttable presumption of the law that a person is innocent until proven guitly. They have to prove you stole the item.

 

All you're guilty of is not having proof - you can't be guilty of theft as there's no evidence against you, apart from the lies of the manager, which frankly carries very little weight.

 

Company Policy is exactly that, POLICY. It does not supercede the law. There is not a court in the land that would find in the company's favour.

 

The bottom line is the company cannot sack you for 'theft' or even 'suspected theft'.

[mariefab]

Something that you should consider and, if appropriate bring up at the meeting:

 

1. Do other members of staff ever eat sweets/chew gum etc. at work?

 

2. If they do, is it the normal practice of this manager to make them empty their pockets on till 1, confiscate the sweets/gum etc, demand that they produce a receipt and threaten disciplinary action?

 

If not, why not; because company policies and disciplinary procedures should be consistently applied.

[mariefab]

The problem is that a Disciplinary hearing is not a court of law.

 

In order to satisfy an Employment Tribunal that a dismissal is fair, they only need to demonstrate that they had sufficient grounds to hold a reasonable belief that the person was guilty of Gross Misconduct.

 

Whether, or not, they have sufficient grounds is debatable at this point.

 

This is why it's so important that their 'evidence' and how it was acquired is questioned at the hearing.

Edited September 25, 2009 by mariefab
adding a line

[deathbycrayons]

The problem is that a Disciplinary hearing is not a court of law.

 

In order to satisfy an Employment Tribunal that a dismissal is fair, they only need to demonstrate that they had sufficient grounds to hold a reasonable belief that the person was guilty of Gross Misconduct.

 

Whether, or not, they have sufficient grounds is debatable at this point.

 

This is why it's so important that their 'evidence' and how it was acquired is questioned at the hearing.

 

Is that good? Sorry, my brain is mush at the moment..

[mariefab]

It's perfectly understandable that your poor brain is mush with all the stress you must be under because of this.

 

To answer your question;

It is good, if the 'evidence' that they have is so flimsy that it doesn't add up to sufficient grounds for them to have a reasonable belief in his guilt.

 

From what you've posted here it doesn't appear that they have sufficient grounds.

Anyone could have bought these sweets and given them to you.

My husband is at work at the moment and, if questioned, he wouldn't have a clue where the cough sweets in his pocket or the contents of his packup came from, or whether any receipts existed. It would be unreasonable for anyone to expect him to know and also none of their business where and when I shop.

 

I would suggest that the same applies to your husband.

They are not claiming that there is any evidence that he took these sweets off the shelf at work that day.

Instead they appear to be suggesting that because he didn't have a receipt for them he must have stolen them.

Well, that's a mighty big assumption when there are obviously several other innocent explanations.

[mariefab]

I suggest that he should take a copy of the Grievance letter that you sent in last week to the meeting.

 

Highlight the area where the manager is quoted saying:

"watch your back" and "be very careful, I'm watching you"

　

When the person holding the meeting brings up the manager's statement, I think that this would be a good time to bring out that Grievance letter. This is because it shows that, given their documented history, it is to be expected that your husband would be worried, upset and flustered by the manager's tactics.