Consistent treatment of minor theft rendered dismissal fair.

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from February 2024 until his dismissal in July 2025. He accepted taking goods before 9 p.m. through a stored transaction completed once the items became free. He maintained that he had worked honestly, described the incident as a lapse and said that he had admitted and apologised for it. The goods were of little value, would otherwise have been discarded and would have become free forty minutes later. He claimed that taking goods after 8 p.m. had been a common practice and referred to a former team leader. He argued that treating the incident as theft and dismissing him had been disproportionate; a warning would have been fairer. He contended that the procedure had been unfair because he entered the fact-finding meeting unprepared and was not directed towards union assistance. He did not appeal, believing it ultimately futile because a colleague’s appeal had failed.

The Respondent maintained that it conducted a fair investigation and disciplinary process and that dismissal for theft fell within the range of reasonable responses. Its investigation found that the Complainant had breached the colleague purchase, honesty, colleague-shop and disciplinary policies (the latter identifying theft, including stealing by deception, as serious misconduct). The Complainant had received the material, viewed the CCTV, admitted leaving with goods without paying and accepted that he had been trained on the policy. He had apologised but declined the opportunity to be represented. It stated that it would have facilitated a union official, although arranging one remained the Complainant’s responsibility. Separate personnel conducted the preliminary fact-finding, investigation and disciplinary decision. The dismissing manager stated that the business applied zero tolerance to theft because it destroyed trust. The cashier and another employee were dismissed, demonstrating consistent treatment. The Complainant was offered an appeal but did not pursue it.

The Adjudicating Officer found that substantial grounds had justified dismissal for the Complainant’s conduct. Applying section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act and the range-of-reasonable-responses test, he declined to substitute his view for the employer’s. Although the goods were low-value, would have become free forty minutes later, and the Complainant had admitted and regretted his actions, the Respondent had reasonably characterised taking them without payment as theft. Its approach had been applied consistently; the other participating employees had also been dismissed. The Complainant had not proved that the practice was widespread or known to management. The procedure had been fair. The preliminary meeting made no findings; he had been warned of the allegation’s seriousness and offered accompaniment. He later received the allegation, evidence, warning of possible dismissal and opportunities for representation and response. Separate personnel handled the stages, and an appeal was offered. His unfair-dismissal complaint was therefore ultimately not upheld.

Employers should:

• Maintain clear written rules governing staff purchases, discounts, waste goods and the precise point at which products may be taken free of charge. Honesty and disciplinary policies should identify unauthorised removal as potential gross misconduct. Employees should receive training, and acknowledgements and policy updates should be retained.
  
  
• Preserve CCTV and transaction records where relevant, conduct neutral preliminary enquiries and use paid suspension only where justified. The employee should receive the specific allegation, supporting material, possible consequences and reasonable time to prepare. Each formal invitation should confirm the right to appropriate representation. Investigation and disciplinary decision-making should be separated where practicable, responses considered and minutes retained.
  
  
• Address value, intent, remorse, service, training, workplace custom and alternative sanctions. Allegations of a widespread practice should be investigated. Consistency was decisive here as  similarly involved employees were treated alike and the manager demonstrated an established approach to theft. A reasoned outcome should explain why trust was irreparably damaged and why a warning was insufficient. An appeal should always be offered.
  

The full case can be found here.