Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hello
No you misunderstand.
The term in the contract in itself would not make it a criminal matter, the fact that the contract stated, "using it for any purpose other than for company business would entitle them to prosecute", would be the issue.
If this term was not in the contract the employee could argue that he thought that he was entitled to use the card as long as the money was reimbursed. This is perhaps something the OP should explore.
I totally agree regarding the statutory requirements of disciplinary meetings, as I said I merely report my experiences of them.
Regarding the OPs justifiable feelings of outrage at his treatment, my advice is to try and put them on the back burner (so to speak).
You have to play their game, I can see no reason why they cannot call a disciplinary over the misuse of a company asset.
I would do my best to comply, I would also write to the CEO directly, not an angry letter but stating that you feel that it is unfair that you are being asked to ******, due to a silly misunderstanding after so many years of blemish free***** due to a difference of personalities**********. Hope to settle this amicably, but am being prevented from so doing.
That sort of thing
LL

[teaboy2]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hello
No you misunderstand.
The term in the contract in itself would not make it a criminal matter, the fact that the contract stated, "using it for any purpose other than for company business would entitle them to prosecute", would be the issue.
If this term was not in the contract the employee could argue that he thought that he was entitled to use the card as long as the money was reimbursed. This is perhaps something the OP should explore.
I totally agree regarding the statutory requirements of disciplinary meetings, as I said I merely report my experiences of them.
Regarding the OPs justifiable feelings of outrage at his treatment, my advice is to try and put them on the back burner (so to speak).
You have to play their game, I can see no reason why they cannot call a disciplinary over the misuse of a company asset.
I would do my best to comply, I would also write to the CEO directly, not an angry letter but stating that you feel that it is unfair that you are being asked to ******, due to a silly misunderstanding after so many years of blemish free***** due to a difference of personalities**********. Hope to settle this amicably, but am being prevented from so doing.
That sort of thing
LL

Yes civil Small Claims Court, and still they would have to prove intent on balance of probability which would be no easy task, when it was nothing more than a basic honest mistake which the employee would easily be able to demostrate. Even if they prosecuted by having him arrest by the police, the police would not even dream of charging him (which would indeed put the employer in an even deeper hole) when he can show clearly it was an honest mistake and is willing to reimburse them. Either tactic regardless of terms in the contract would be deemed as heavy handed, unfair, unreasonable and unnecessary, considering the alternative and quickest solution would have been an informal amicable resolution for the honest mistake. Off course if the employee had denied it out right then thats a different matter. So i do not see where i have misunderstood anything.

I see where your coming from in how you write a letter, but either way it is written it will have the same result. As the company simply will be shooting themselves in the foot over what is basically an honest mistake. I have my way of writing letters that are strongly worded in order to make it clear and get the point across in no uncertain terms as to what possible consquences maybe or what my rights or an employees rights are. So i simply prefer the more direct and straight to the butt of it approach where you prefer the more polite approach which is fine.

Anyway, i think we both agree that this forum is not ment for one another to discuss our disagreements with one anothers form or content of the advice each other has given. It is at the end of the day upto the op whos advice they take.

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

HI

No tHis would be criminal Via the CPS? they would be accusing the OP of theft.

It would be for them to show mens rea.

LL

[charitynjw]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hello
No you misunderstand.
The term in the contract in itself would not make it a criminal matter, the fact that the contract stated, "using it for any purpose other than for company business would entitle them to prosecute", would be the issue.
If this term was not in the contract the employee could argue that he thought that he was entitled to use the card as long as the money was reimbursed. This is perhaps something the OP should explore.
I totally agree regarding the statutory requirements of disciplinary meetings, as I said I merely report my experiences of them.
Regarding the OPs justifiable feelings of outrage at his treatment, my advice is to try and put them on the back burner (so to speak).
You have to play their game, I can see no reason why they cannot call a disciplinary over the misuse of a company asset.
I would do my best to comply, I would also write to the CEO directly, not an angry letter but stating that you feel that it is unfair that you are being asked to ******, due to a silly misunderstanding after so many years of blemish free***** due to a difference of personalities**********. Hope to settle this amicably, but am being prevented from so doing.
That sort of thing
LL

Hi LL

Imho, the clauses I have seen in contracts do say something similar to that highlighted above.
I haven't seen one which states that disciplinary action will always be taken. regardless of cirumstances.
Mistakes can happen, & if there is a perfectly reasonable explanation (as it would seem in this case), and a repayment of the offending sum, then to pursue it in such a draconian way - well, I would be looking to defend my reputation, even if it meant going to ET.

That said, your posts are extremely useful, as it is not often that the 'employer's' side of the coin is aired on the forum.
I guess in most cases it must be quite tricky, juggling what is fair, what is 'legal', whether leniency may set an unwanted precedent, & a thousand other considerations - not forgetting the financial implications, of course

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hi LL

Imho, the clauses I have seen in contracts do say something similar to that highlighted above.
I haven't seen one which states that disciplinary action will always be taken. regardless of cirumstances.
Mistakes can happen, & if there is a perfectly reasonable explanation (as it would seem in this case), and a repayment of the offending sum, then to pursue it in such a draconian way - well, I would be looking to defend my reputation, even if it meant going to ET.

That said, your posts are extremely useful, as it is not often that the 'employer's' side of the coin is aired on the forum.
I guess in most cases it must be quite tricky, juggling what is fair, what is 'legal', whether leniency may set an unwanted precedent, & a thousand other considerations - not forgetting the financial implications, of course

Hello
Not that I am on the employers side of course, HR is a funny job in that you are neither employer or employee in a strange sort of way. But you do get to see both sides of the coin.
Anyway I am well into retirement now
LL

[teaboy2]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

HI

No tHis would be criminal Via the CPS? they would be accusing the OP of theft.

It would be for them to show mens rea.

LL

In all honesty LL, it would never even get that far, without evidence of intent. The police won't even arrest the guy if he claims its an honest mistaken and no evidence can be found to say otherwise. To accuse someone of Theft, you most show proof they of intent. Without proof of intent, you can not accuse them of theft, because of the simple fact that if its proven to be an honest mistake, the accuser could well face slander or libel charges.
Secondly in a court of law, the onus of proof is on the claiment/prosecution. Hence why its known as innocent until proven guilty.

That being said i agree with charity above, and your post are useful in regards to seeing it from the employers side too.

[bluebottle]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Okay. I'm going to make my contribution to this thread.

You say that you inadvertently used a company credit card for a personal purchase and only realised later that this had happened. Fine. If your current employer is claiming that you are defrauding them or similar, let them produce the evidence to prove it. The "innocent until proven guilty" rule applies to all types of proceedings, unless the law states to the contrary.

In my experience, a lot of HR professionals are not familiar with Criminal Law which is an horrendously complex area of English Law and is peppered with "ifs", "ands" and "buts". Nothing is ever black and white, in Criminal Law, only grey. I am a retired policeman and have worked with the Criminal Law, so I am speaking from experience.

Your current employer is under an obligation to prove intent to permanently deprive them of the value of the goods, whether deliberately or recklessly. From what you say, there appears to be no evidence of either deliberate or reckless intent on your part in this respect. It is a genuine error and the law is quite clear that a person cannot be accused of committing an act of criminal dishonesty on that basis alone. In fact, the evidence needed to prove criminal dishonesty has to be fairly robust. Such an allegation is taken very seriously as it is an attack on an individual's integrity, reputation and character. And woe betide anyone who makes such an allegation and fails to prove same. The damages a court can inflict on an accuser for getting it wrong are high, Ł70k+ before addition of any legal costs is not unusual.

Certainly, this new manager needs to be warned that if her allegations are found to be malicious or incapable of proof, she, herself, could be liable to disciplinary action under your current employer's terms of employment. Additionally, there is clear evidence of bullying and harassment on her part that resulted in you suffering psychiatric injury, i.e. depression. There is provision under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to seek damages, amongst other things, for any financial losses, anxiety and other psychiatric injury you have suffered as a result of her conduct. There is case law that holds an employer vicariously liable for acts of harassment committed by an employee against another employee, namely, Mjrowski - v - Guys and St Thomas's NHS Trust 2005. This is a ruling by the Court of Appeal. Not only could your current employer have to pay damages, the manager can be ordered to pay damages also. Also, please be aware that proceedings for damages for psychiatric injury caused by harassment, under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, are exempt from the three-year limit for personal injury under Section 11, Limitation Act 1980 by virtue of Section 6, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Whilst I would strongly advise you to seek competent professional legal advice, I have a feeling this matter can be resolved amicably by pointing out to your current employer that the damages they are likely to incur would far outweigh the value of the goods you inadvertently purchased on a company credit card and questions could be asked by shareholders, if your employer is a company with shareholders, and/or the BIS. You can and should offer to reimburse the value of the goods, which your employers cannot and should not reasonably refuse. Dismissing you would expose them to a claim of Constructive Dismissal (the reason you are going to a new job) or Unfair Dismissal (dismissing you on a dubious allegation of criminal conduct).

Get advice from a legal professional before next Wednesday as to how to handle this.

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hello
I think the criminal aspect of this is out of proportion to the initial inquiry but it is interesting never the less, I would agree that the knowledge of criminal law possessed but HR professionals is not great, it is not really a pre requisite of the job.
However someone who has done the job for a number of years (as you yourself point out) has the advantage of experience
In my opinion this is best kept out of the legal arena all together, as I said in my first post, spouting legal rhetoric in a case like this could start a ball rolling that will benefit no one(and least of all the OP).
The facts are that the card was used without the permission of the card holder. Is anyone saying that this is not a disciplinary matter?
So how is the OP best to handle this, is it by saying he was somehow entitled to do so because he has been treated so badly elsewhere, I am afraid it will not work.
Is he to say that a disciplinary is not fair for some reason and threaten them with harassment?
Or is he to attend the hearing explain what happened and try and make an amicable settlement.
You tell me you’re considered opinion
LL

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

In all honesty LL, it would never even get that far, without evidence of intent. The police won't even arrest the guy if he claims its an honest mistaken and no evidence can be found to say otherwise. To accuse someone of Theft, you most show proof they of intent. Without proof of intent, you can not accuse them of theft, because of the simple fact that if its proven to be an honest mistake, the accuser could well face slander or libel charges.
Secondly in a court of law, the onus of proof is on the claiment/prosecution. Hence why its known as innocent until proven guilty.

That being said i agree with charity above, and your post are useful in regards to seeing it from the employers side too.

With reference to this and Bluebottles comment about proving intent.
I do not dispute this, as pointed out i do not have the knowledge in this area to dispute it. However how does this reconcile with say a shoplifter who is caught with an item in there coat pocket outside a store. Does the CPS have to prove that it wasnt placed there by mistake or didnt just fall in his pocket?

I know intent has to be shown but to what extent, can using someone elses card really be so easily dismissed as a mistake legally speaking.

LL

Not being fasesious here would like to know.



LL

[teaboy2]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

With reference to this and Bluebottles comment about proving intent.
I do not dispute this, as pointed out i do not have the knowledge in this area to dispute it. However how does this reconcile with say a shoplifter who is caught with an item in there coat pocket outside a store. Does the CPS have to prove that it wasnt placed there by mistake or didnt just fall in his pocket?

I know intent has to be shown but to what extent, can using someone elses card really be so easily dismissed as a mistake legally speaking.

LL

Not being fasesious here would like to know.



LL

Hi LL Intent has to be proved on balance of probability, therefore it is more probably that the shoplifter (given CCTV image) and put it in their pocket with intent to steal. However if they have it in there hands or a child is holding it when they do the remainder of their shopping and they forget its in their hands or thei child has it when paying for the rest of their items then it is more likely an honest mistake, then it was intent to steal. Hell alot of people fill their cars up go into the garage pick up a paper put it under their arm to pay and forget to pay for the paper, or they pay for the paper but forget to pay for their fuel, especially if they are distracted by another customer or by conversation with the person behind the till. That too would be honest mistake.

So the employer here would have to prove that the employee knew it was the company card when he put it into the machine to pay. Proving that is impossible unless their is a clear undeniable and obvious difference in the way the card looks compared to his personal card. And with the OP saying the card is very similar to his own, then it would be difficult to proof there was any intent by the employee.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Hello
I think the criminal aspect of this is out of proportion to the initial inquiry but it is interesting never the less, I would agree that the knowledge of criminal law possessed but HR professionals is not great, it is not really a pre requisite of the job.
However someone who has done the job for a number of years (as you yourself point out) has the advantage of experience
In my opinion this is best kept out of the legal arena all together, as I said in my first post, spouting legal rhetoric in a case like this could start a ball rolling that will benefit no one(and least of all the OP).
The facts are that the card was used without the permission of the card holder. Is anyone saying that this is not a disciplinary matter?
So how is the OP best to handle this, is it by saying he was somehow entitled to do so because he has been treated so badly elsewhere, I am afraid it will not work.
Is he to say that a disciplinary is not fair for some reason and threaten them with harassment?
Or is he to attend the hearing explain what happened and try and make an amicable settlement.
You tell me you’re considered opinion
LL

Merely informing someone of their legal rights and how to put them across is not sprouting legal rhetoric. If people here on consumer sites that advise on employment law did not advise people of their legal rights then people (employees) will be helpless victims to those employers that flout the law or choose to ignore or get round it in the hope, and only in the hope the employee is not aware of their rights or the law.

If we did what you said and did not advise people of legalislation and there rights, then what would be the point of this forum, as it would simply be a nothing more than a place to come and get sympathy rather than advice and information about their legal rights etc.

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Sorry Tea boy but I do not think that this is correct.(am sure blue bottle will tell me if I am wrong).
The balance of probabilities only applies in civil cases.
The level of proof required in criminal cases is far greater, innocent until proven guilty I believe. It is not good enough to prove an act probably took place in a criminal case it must be proven absolutely.
Hence my question.
LL
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

If we did what you said and did not advise people of legalislation and there rights, then what would be the point of this forum, as it would simply be a nothing more than a place to come and get sympathy rather than advice and information about their legal rights etc.

Hello i think we agree but resorting to law must always be the last resort IMO

LL

[bluebottle]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hi lindalou and thank you for your query which I am happy to answer.

The problem of HR professionals not being familiar with the ins and outs of Criminal Law is of longstanding and has resulted in dismissals that are not only blatantly unfair, but have resulted in employers being seriously out of pocket when a court or tribunal have ruled against them. Of the HR professionals I have had dealings with who are good at their job, they don't make assumptions and weigh what both sides say before deciding how best to deal with it. If they have reasonable cause to suspect a criminal act has occurred but do not have sufficient evidence, they call the police and let them deal with it. If it is obvious, they still call the police because all crimes have to be reported to the police.

From what is presented, yes, the employee did use a company credit card contrary to company rules, but it has to be, first, established that this was intentional. In the case of Employment Law and Employment Tribunals, the burden of proof is on balance of probability. Although this has a lesser requirement than that with Criminal Law, which is beyond all reasonable doubt, an employer still has to act fairly and observe the basic principles of the law.

In this case, there is clear evidence of conflict between employee and manager to the point the employee is moving to another employer to get away from the bullying and harassment they have endured. There is also evidence of psychiatric injury, evidenced by a period of sick leave due to depression. Regardless of the inadvertent use of a company credit card for a personal purchase, not only does the bullying and harassment expose the employer to action under Section 2, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Failure to Ensure Safe Working Environment, Exposing An Employee to Unnecessary Stress) and Regulation 3, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Requirement to Carry Out Risk Assessment) , it also exposes the employer to a claim of Constructive Dismissal, evidenced by the employee going to another employer to escape the manager's conduct towards them.

If an employee makes a personal purchase using a company credit card as an act of revenge against the employer, then there are grounds in law per se to dismiss the employee without notice as this amounts to criminal conduct, i.e. fraud. If, on the other hand, the purchase is inadvertent and, as this case shows, was clearly a genuine error as the card and another card had very similar appearances and the employee almost tendered the company credit card in error on other occasions, this is an administrative matter which could be rectified by pointing the matter out to the employee and asking them to reimburse the employer with the amount involved. Yes, technically, it is a breach of company rules, but the employer has to take a proportionate approach in dealing with it and not make a mountain out of a molehill. If the employer's response is disproportionate and clearly or potentially unfair or unreasonable, then the employee has grounds for action against the employer.

My gut feeling in this case is that the disciplinary hearing is further bullying and harassment on the part of the manager, regardless of whether she is directly or indirectly involved in it. If this is, indeed, the case, the matter will be decided on matters of law, probably, before an Employment Tribunal.

Turning to the hypothetical case of the shoplifter, in answer to the question you pose, the onus is on the retailer to prove theft beyond all reasonable doubt. If you go to Legislation.gov.uk and look at Sections 1-7, Theft Act 1968 you will see how intent is defined and determined. The CPS simply act as a prosecuting authority on behalf of the DPP. The onus of proof always lies on the accuser.

I hope this answers the points you have raised, but if you have any further points, feel free to come back and ask.

[charitynjw]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

I was under the impression that, in Employment Law, all the employer needs is 'reasonable suspicion' in order to satisfy the 'band of reasonable responses' rule

They should, however, still carry out the proper disciplinary procedures (investigation, disciplinary meetings, etc.)

& it is worth mentioning that this is a 'Gross Misconduct' offence. (Absolutely no offence intended to to the OP!, lol)

[lindalou]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

Hi lindalou and thank you for your query which I am happy to answer.

The problem of HR professionals not being familiar with the ins and outs of Criminal Law is of longstanding and has resulted in dismissals that are not only blatantly unfair, but have resulted in employers being seriously out of pocket when a court or tribunal have ruled against them. Of the HR professionals I have had dealings with who are good at their job, they don't make assumptions and weigh what both sides say before deciding how best to deal with it. If they have reasonable cause to suspect a criminal act has occurred but do not have sufficient evidence, they call the police and let them deal with it. If it is obvious, they still call the police because all crimes have to be reported to the police.


My problem with the police is that they rarely turn up until the matter is resolved or the perpetrater has dissapeared or sometimes not at all

From what is presented, yes, the employee did use a company credit card contrary to company rules, but it has to be, first, established that this was intentional. In the case of Employment Law and Employment Tribunals, the burden of proof is on balance of probability. Although this has a lesser requirement than that with Criminal Law, which is beyond all reasonable doubt, an employer still has to act fairly and observe the basic principles of the law.

Must piojnt out here that no such proof is required for the matter to be subject to a discaplinery hearing. If the use of the card was just an innocent mistake, there is still the mater of due care of company assets.

In this case, there is clear evidence of conflict between employee and manager to the point the employee is moving to another employer to get away from the bullying and harassment they have endured. There is also evidence of psychiatric injury, evidenced by a period of sick leave due to depression. Regardless of the inadvertent use of a company credit card for a personal purchase, not only does the bullying and harassment expose the employer to action under Section 2, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Failure to Ensure Safe Working Environment, Exposing An Employee to Unnecessary Stress) and Regulation 3, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Requirement to Carry Out Risk Assessment) , it also exposes the employer to a claim of Constructive Dismissal, evidenced by the employee going to another employer to escape the manager's conduct towards them.

Is there any official record of this , any recorded compmlaint or was there any grievence commenced

If an employee makes a personal purchase using a company credit card as an act of revenge against the employer, then there are grounds in law per se to dismiss the employee without notice as this amounts to criminal conduct, i.e. fraud. If, on the other hand, the purchase is inadvertent and, as this case shows, was clearly a genuine error as the card and another card had very similar appearances and the employee almost tendered the company credit card in error on other occasions, this is an administrative matter which could be rectified by pointing the matter out to the employee and asking them to reimburse the employer with the amount involved.

I believe this would be amatter for the DPP CPS or the court to decide, am i wrong?


Yes, technically, it is a breach of company rules, but the employer has to take a proportionate approach in dealing with it and not make a mountain out of a molehill. If the employer's response is disproportionate and clearly or potentially unfair or unreasonable, then the employee has grounds for action against the employer.

This depends on the employer and their particular rules and contracts of employment, although statute does restrict the actions of an employer there is still a wide range of sanctions that can legally be applied, in cases of breach, of conditions of employment.
Each employer for instance will have its own list of what it considers to be a terminal breach

My gut feeling in this case is that the disciplinary hearing is further bullying and harassment on the part of the manager, regardless of whether she is directly or indirectly involved in it. If this is, indeed, the case, the matter will be decided on matters of law, probably, before an Employment Tribunal.

Perhaps, or it may just be an attempt to resolve the matter, whatever it is, it is the correct proceeure.

Turning to the hypothetical case of the shoplifter, in answer to the question you pose, the onus is on the retailer to prove theft beyond all reasonable doubt. If you go to Legislation.gov.uk and look at Sections 1-7, Theft Act 1968 you will see how intent is defined and determined. The CPS simply act as a prosecuting authority on behalf of the DPP. The onus of proof always lies on the accuser.

I hope this answers the points you have raised, but if you have any further points, feel free to come back and ask.

Yes in part, thank you i will have a read

LL

[bluebottle]

Re: Handed my notice in but now they are taking me to a disciplinary- Help needed

I am afraid the employer in this case has wandered into a very dangerous area of the law, whether we like it or not. As well as being a retired policeman, I have run a business myself in the past.

The employee has admitted inadvertently using a company credit card, which is identical or very similar to his/her own bank card, for a personal purchase, which has come to light later. The employee has also admitted that, on other occasions, they have almost made the same error.

An employer is bound by the same laws as everyone else, in addition to Employment Law, which is in place to protect both employers and employees, and does not provide the employer with any special dispensations or exemptions.

There is clear evidence of conflict between the employee and their manager and which has resulted in the employee suffering psychiatric injury, evidenced by a period of sick leave due to depression related to bullying and harassment on the part of the manager. The employer is bound by Section 2, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Ensuring a Safe Working Environment; Ensuring Employee Not Exposed to Unnecessary Stress) and Regulation 3, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Requirement to Carry Out A Risk Assessment) as regards the health and safety of employees. The manager is bound by Section 7, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which means they are responsible not only for their own health and safety, but that of others, too, and those who may be affected by their actions or omissions.

In the case of Mjrowski -v- Guys and St Thomas's NHS Trust 2005, it was ruled, by the Court of Appeal, that an employer is vicariously liable for injury and/or ill-health caused by bullying and harassment in the workplace.

The practice you outline, lindalou, of an HR professional and a manager discussing a case before an employee enters the room is, as teaboy2 correctly points out, not only unfair, but unlawful too and a dead cert for an employer to be ripped to shreds by an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, amongst other things. And it does not stop there. There is a caveat contained with Section 7, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 stating that any person aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring another in the commission of conduct amounting to harassment shall be regarded as having committed a course of conduct amounting to harassment themselves and shall be liable to the same penalties - civil and criminal - as the principal offender.

Whilst the burden of proof in disciplinary hearings is balance of probability, at the end of the day, the employer still has to prove the allegation(s) being made against an employee are capable of proof and would stand up to examination and cross-examination if the matter ends up before an Employment Tribunal for adjudication. An employer is also expected to deal with alleged breaches of employment terms proportionately and fairly, otherwise, an Employment Tribunal can find against them. It also needs to be remembered that Employment Tribunals have the power to increase awards against employers who do not follow statutory procedures.

My gut feeling tells me that this is further evidence of bullying and harassment by the manager. The transgression is an administrative matter and, as teaboy2 has quite correctly said, could be dealt with by pointing the matter out to the employee and asking them to reimburse the employer prior to their last day of employment with that employer.

What will be the outcome? Being Devil's Advocate, I would say it is likely to go to an Employment Tribunal if the employer does not get a grip on the manager's behaviour and drops the disciplinary hearing like a proverbial hot potato. If this does go to an Employment Tribunal, which way is it likely to go? Bearing in mind that the chair of an Employment Tribunal is a judge, not a lay person - the two other members of a tribunal are lay persons - compliance with the law is something that is looked for in cases brought before them. Also, case papers are examined to determine the merits of a claim, prior to the employer being informed of the claim, and cases without merit are weeded out. My gut feeling is that the employer is likely to lose and lose badly. The recent case in Wakefield has sent a clear message to employers to get a grip on bullying and harassment in the workplace or face heavy financial penalties and loss of reputation, which has consequences of its own.

Turning to the hypothetical case of the shoplifter, the onus lies on the retailer to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a person has committed theft. Go to legislation.gov.uk and look at Sections 1-7, Theft Act 1968. This will explain what points have to be proven. It will also provide a better understanding of how the Criminal Law works in contrast to Civil Law.

The CPS is the prosecuting authority in England and Wales. In Scotland, it is the Procurator Fiscal. All case papers prepared by the police are passed to the CPS who then examine the evidence to determine, firstly, whether there is a case to answer and, secondly, whether there is a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. At present, the probability of securing a conviction is 51% or higher.