Wrongly handled?

[MissFM]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Unfortunately "they" are highly unlikely to apologise in case it were to be seen as an admission of wrongdoing and that would expose them to litigation. Ranks will be closing.

To whom are you writing?

Only the most senior are likely to have the confidence and job security to react on a more human level. Perhaps a cri de coeur to the CEO stating the facts and saying that you would appreciate an apology for the breach of confidentiality but are not seeking an admission of guilt - and that your SD should, in all conscience, have a decent reference?

In mitigation for your SD's error of judgment in helping her colleague to steal, there is the fact that the practice was so endemic that anyone coming into the work place would assume it to be tacitly condoned. As you say above, they should be glad of this opportunity to clean up the ethos.

SD's record of hard work and her sincere regret that she participated in (was drawn into) the customary dishonesty would also be worth mentioning.

I agree with Labman et al that anyattempt at legal redress would be an own goal.

I personally do find a strong letter and a virtual poke in the goolies to mine enemies to be cathartic, even if there is no tangible result (beyond the obvious) - but not everyone feels this way.

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Once again MIss FM I am in full agreement with you. The last letter from the "Store Manager", of what, we dont know, said any response should be direct to the "H. R. Advisor" and that is what we have done. At that level it does not seem to matter who we write to a reply seems to come from another person. I feel you are spot on with what the next stage should be and to whom it should be addressed.

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Yes this is still going on and is now a game of "letter tennis" as so nicely put earlier in the thread. I am now getting angry as each letter claims something different and comes from one of three different people.
"we" are going to have one last go and then "I" as the angry step dad am going straight to the CEO, in writing telling absolutely everything, names, dates, texts, word for word dates and times. In other words I am blowing the lid of the whole lot and then we walk.
Before that I have one question that I would appreciate a bit of guidance on.
They have offered an appeal hearing with another Area Manager who will "have a colleague present as a Management witness and note taker. She, my SD, can take another employee or union rep.
As she is no longer employed by them, everyone else at the meeting will be in the company's employment and the only employees she can take will be named in the meeting that leaves a having a union rep and that she does not have.

Does this mean she can bring anyone who is a trade union rep?

Is there any reason why, under the circumstances, I cannot accompany her instead as she is no longer an employee?

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Haven't read the last page of the thread here, but i noticed some are confusing the OP's SD actions as theft here, when the OP's clearly stated that everyone was doing this for a long period of time, by the sounds of it, therefore it had become custom and practice, in this store, regardless of company policy. As such the only person that can be held accountable for such breach of company policy is the manager. Yes the other Party should have paid for the goods, but the SD is not liable to pay for the goods since she wasn't in possession of them.

So no its not theft on the SD part nor is she a party to theft. All she is guilty of is following what had become Customary Practice in the branch.

Also a breach of Data protection act 1998 has occurred here, e.g. Telling other staff member of suspension and that she would be dismissed and reasons why, leading to member of the public finding out, leading the the SD being publicly embarrassed and distressed, it is also slander to say she has been sacked for something when she hasn't been (If that is what was said to staff members of to members of the public) and the employer is responsible for any slanderous comments made by staff members. That is a breach of employment contract which can amount to constructive dismissal.

So if we havne't already in this last page of the thread, i suggest people stop assuming shes a thieve when its clear that is not the actually the case, based on what the OP has said in the first 3 pages of this thread!

OP - I shall read the remainder of this thread and post further thoughts tomorrow, just a little short on time at the moment which is why i skipped reading this last page in favor of setting the record straight in posting my comment here.

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

teaboy2, I must be getting old I had never thought of that angle. I look forward to your comments once you have read the full thread-impressed!!!

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

How can she not be party to the theft if she 'served' the person and condoned them going without paying? Surely she was an accomplice to the act?

She could have reported it as a theft, but didn't. Just because lots of others did it doesn't make this right.

With regards to being allowed a 'friend' at a meeting, I don't see why this couldn't be you, but you would need to be very clear of your rights in the meeting, otherwise you might be asked to leave it. I'm not suggesting you'd go off on one, but I know there's rules about when the friend can and can't talk etc...

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

How can she not be party to the theft if she 'served' the person and condoned them going without paying? Surely she was an accomplice to the act?

She could have reported it as a theft, but didn't. Just because lots of others did it doesn't make this right.

With regards to being allowed a 'friend' at a meeting, I don't see why this couldn't be you, but you would need to be very clear of your rights in the meeting, otherwise you might be asked to leave it. I'm not suggesting you'd go off on one, but I know there's rules about when the friend can and can't talk etc...

The crux of it Labman, is that if the manager had allowed them all to do this regularly over a period of time, then it becomes custom and practice (in other words manager permitting staff to take stock for free as freebie, gifts etc. or pay for it later or pay by other means). The items where taken by another member of staff, it is not the SD responsibility to make sure the other member of staff paid, to say it is, would be to say all checkout workers are party to theft every time a shoplifter got past without paying.

The manager is ultimately responsible for stock, the company policies/procedures and customs and practices his/her staff follow. Therefore if the manager allowed it to be customary practice for staff to take items and not put them through the till, then the manager is the one that is liable and the one that is accessory to theft, the SD is simply following what to her was normal custom and practice in that branch. Even if SD knew it wasn't right, she was still only following procedure that the manager had set out and had allowed to become customary practice, and likely feared she would loose her job or suffered detriment if she tried to enforce standard company procedure/policy.

For it to be accessory to theft then the SD would have to have known a crime is being, or will be committed - In this case, as the customary practice within the branch was to allow staff to take items without paying where the manager had full knowledge off such goings on and had allowed the staff to do so without acting to stop it, then its become customary practice in that branch. And the manager is, in fact, giving away the stock each time to his/her staff - hence why its not theft or accessory to theft, but why the manager is the one whom is liable. Its no different to the manager putting the stock in your hand and saying "here you can have this for free, take it home with you".

For example, if a manager allowed staff to put IOU's in the till and take x amount out of the till and then pay later (and this had been allowed for months by the manager - and this does happen in retail. i've witnessed it myself), is that Theft? No its custom and practice even if company policy does not allow it or if money was not paid back in full, in which case the manager, not the staff member, would be liable for said outstanding monies due to allowing such practice in stead of following company policy. The same applies here in regards to value of stock the manager allowed/permitted staff to take in breach of company policy but that he/she had allowed to become custom and practice in the branch.

The difficulty is proving that this is how things were done by everyone, and that therefore it was custom and practice and liability lied with the manager not members of staff. But in this case i suspect the OP has enough evidence to prove this.

End of the day a retail branches entire team of staff do not just help themselves to stock unless the manager has said they may and allows them to. The fact every staff member at the branch where SD worked (including the manager too probably) was doing it and not the odd one here or there, confirms it was custom and practice permitted by the manager with the managers full knowledge. Therefore no crime was committed by the SD or other staff member involve, there was no theft (as their was no intention to steal par se) as the manager had allowed staff to take stock in this way with their full knowledge to the point where it became custom and practice for all staff members. And it is the manager that is responsible for all stock held in branch and what practices/policies/procedures his/staff follow in regards to purchasing stock or taking stock home for free, not SD or any other staff members responsibility.

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

That's an interesting post. Given the previous pages (I'm typing from memory, and I think you said you hadn't read them completely) I think proving this would be hard.

I suggested whistleblowing a while ago, which would, in my opinion, have been the right route to pursue. I doubt any legislation or retail guidance would reinforce what you say, but I know very very little about it. I'm happy to be proven wrong. Surely, as adults, taking stock without paying would make them all guilty, not all innocent except the manager? :beagle:

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

That's an interesting post. Given the previous pages (I'm typing from memory, and I think you said you hadn't read them completely) I think proving this would be hard.

I suggested whistleblowing a while ago, which would, in my opinion, have been the right route to pursue. I doubt any legislation or retail guidance would reinforce what you say, but I know very very little about it. I'm happy to be proven wrong. Surely, as adults, taking stock without paying would make them all guilty, not all innocent except the manager? :beagle:

Its only this last page that i haven't fully read mate.

Proving it can be diffcult, but then its whether you have the evidence showing all staff members were doing this with the full knowledge and permission of the manager.

The manager is responsible for everything that happens at their branch. Its part and parcel of the job.

If the manager had told his/her staff they can take items and not worry about paying for them and this had been going on for months, then it becomes custom and practice in store. The same applies even if the manager didn't say they could, but still did nothing about it, then they were still permitted and consenting to their staff doing so by not doing anything to stop it.

So its not a question about adults taking stock without paying, its a question of did the manager know? Did the manager say they could? Did the manager do nothing to stop it, which in term means they consented to their staff taking items? How did the manager account for the missing stock (This being a very important question), did they write the stock off each time an employee took items knowing that the employee had taken them? Did they put the stock down as being stolen, missing, unaccounted for.

Another important question is, how often where stock checks performed? As most retailer perform a stock check every 6 months, so the question is why did items being taken by staff but not paid for, not show up on the stock check - Only conclusion is the manager or other person(s) was writing the stock off each time, a staff member took items in order to cover up the fact stock was being taken. And therefore allowing for it to become custom and practice for staff to take items for free with the full consent of the manager, branch management. Hence why its custom and practice and not theft by staff members - Though it would be fraud on the manager, managements side!

Whistleblowing is still a good route to go down and is certainly one i would support, the OP SD can even use the custom and practice argument at the same time to clear her name or even get her job back, if she wants it back.

Heres a friendly fun test for you Mate:

As you know, my business supplies Ink Cartridges amongst other things.

Now lets say i had a young lad working in the warehouse along with another older member of staff that was the young lads supervisor/manager. Now lets say not long after the young lad started his employment, a higher volume than normal of one particular multipack of Compatible Ink Cartridges where suddenly put down as written of stock, and some even missing when it came to doing a stock check. Lets say i put a camera hidden on the opposite shelve pointing straight at the shelve containing these Particular Cartridges and i then checked the footage each day in comparison with paper work for orders picked that day were, and found footage of the young lad taking a pack of the cartidges of the shelf, despite there being no order picked that day for that particular cartridge.

Lets say i then confront the young lad about it with the footage, and he then says that his supervisor said he could take a pack for his home printer whenever he needed and not to worry about it as he (the supervisor) also did it (and used the same inks) and no one minds - implying that we allowed them to take ink for free. Then lets say i leave the camera in place telling the lad to take time off work (Suspended with pay) and not to speak to anyone whilst i continued to check to footage each day to then also catch the supervisor taking a pack of ink, when again there was no orders picked that day that contained those particular inks.

I then confront the supervisor just as i did the young lad, though made no mention about catching the young lad doing the same. And the supervisors admitted that he had taken the inks, and that he had manipulated the stock levels by writing off a pack each time he took one - this would explain the normal amount being written off (no0te some ink cartridges are prone to leak more than others through design faults, especially compatibles). I then asked if he told the young lad he could take them a pack anytime he needed some for his home printer, in which the supervisor then also admitted too.

Do i then following disciplinary procedures do any off the following or any number of the following (Correct course action can be a single course of action or multiple courses of action):

A) sack both for theft?
B) Sack the Supervisor for theft and fraud and sack the young lad for Theft?
C) Sack the young lad for theft?
D) Allow the Young lad off with an Informal warning given that he was led to believe it was custom and practice?
E) Sack the Supervisor only?
F) Give them both Final Written warnings for gross misconduct?

Let me know what multiple or single course of action you would take Labman along with any other course of action you yourself can think off in dealing with this test situation. I'll then tell you mine which would be the correct course of action, in employment terms.

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

OK, before I answer, I assume your correct answer can be substantiated by legislation, or is it your opinion that it is the correct course of action?

Strangely I nearly used your business in replying, but didn't as I didn't know if it was public knowledge here or would count as advertising etc...

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

OK, before I answer, I assume your correct answer can be substantiated by legislation, or is it your opinion that it is the correct course of action?

Strangely I nearly used your business in replying, but didn't as I didn't know if it was public knowledge here or would count as advertising etc...

The correct answers is backed by fairness and reasonableness and commonsense in terms of employment law, as well as what as persons course of conduct actually amounts to as being defined as criminal or not. Intent and knowingly, being the key words in defining a criminal act - But also you have to take into account the whole situation to determine if ones actions were criminal or just down to being naive! So yes it would be back by definition under law whether it amounted to a criminal act, and therefore the wrong answer chosen as the course of action could lead to an unfair dismissal claim being brought and indeed being successful.

I don't think my buisness name is common knowledge here and yes it would amount to advertising, except for amongst the VIP members and site team, hence why i only referred to it as my business.

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

And I hope it is going well during this tough period!

OK, I have a very short answer (totally disregarding any issues connected with covert recording). Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Your company handbook will spell things out fairly clearly, and as an employer, my understanding is that you have to follow the ACAS Handbook for instances like these, so that is what I would do.

Instant dismissal, or 'Summary Dismissal' to give what I believe to be its correct title can be used in very exceptional cases of gross misconduct. I wouldn't for this (that does not mean one may not end up being dismissed). I'd follow the procedures outlined in the handbook and go from there.

That gives my answer - what would you do?


Incidentally I get sent emails about all sorts of things from various consumer and charitable organisations. I think last year, theft by employees cost businesses nearly two billion pounds - most of it apparently opportunistic, not because they are compulsive thieves (-eg- stealing pens from a school stationery cupboard). Loyalty and work satisfaction reaps dividends in my experience, so creating the right workplace would go a long way to minimising any potential issues - I don't know if that's in the ACAS handbook as I've not read it for ages.

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Hi,

May I add my musings.

From a criminal law pov, & the actus reus & mens rea involved.

Actus reus.
Can the property in dispute be identified?
If so, has appropriation occured?
Appropriation - 'any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation, and this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner'. (Theft Act 1968 s3.1)
Did it belong to another?
I think I would look at R v Gomez (1993) and Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid (1993), as 'Reid' specifically concerned theft from an employer.

Once the actus reus is established, was there the necessary mens rea?
Here, as I'm reasonably sure our 'bluebottle' would state, the test would be R v Ghosh (1982).
It is an objective test, that of the ubiquitous 'reasonable person'; the jury must ask themselves 'was the act dishonest, & if so, in their (the jury's) opinion should the defendant have realised it was dishonest?'
It must be noted, therefore, that the 'defendants' own perception is disregarded & substituted by that of 'the reasonable person'.

My take on that is that it would be irrelevant that others were doing the same, or that it had become habitual or common practise, although that could be a mitigating factor if pleading guilty.
However, for completeness, I reckon you would also have to consider whether there was undue influence involved, though I suspect that it would need to be more than just 'going along with the others' - it would probably require an element of having to do so, against your usual better judgement, for some pressing reason.

As far as the workplace is concerned, my understanding is that if the employer has reasonable suspicion of a breach of contract, especially one which goes to the root of it (& theft would be one of these, as it breaches loyalty/fidelity/trust), then there are a range of options available.
One of these is usually instant dismissal for gross misconduct (this is on the list of 'default' reasons in the ACAS Code).
If this is so, the ET is unlikely to substitute their own finding in place of that of the employer's, although they would be obliged to consider whether it was an available option open to a reasonable employer; if it was available, then it is quite permissible for the employer to act as they feel fit.

Just my ramblings!

[wales01man]

Re: Wrongly handled?

I cannot believe some of what im reading? Its acceptable to steal or pass goods over to another that should have been paid for because others are doing the same.
So I work for a company and I believe others are committing crimes say racially abising another worker I can do the same ,may not be theft but still a crime how on earth can this girls and others in that company can claim that as a defence .
Is there legislation in this country that allows a crime to be committed cos others are doing the same very unlikely

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Replying to you all in one post.

And I hope it is going well during this tough period!

OK, I have a very short answer (totally disregarding any issues connected with covert recording). Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Your company handbook will spell things out fairly clearly, and as an employer, my understanding is that you have to follow the ACAS Handbook for instances like these, so that is what I would do.

Instant dismissal, or 'Summary Dismissal' to give what I believe to be its correct title can be used in very exceptional cases of gross misconduct. I wouldn't for this (that does not mean one may not end up being dismissed). I'd follow the procedures outlined in the handbook and go from there.

That gives my answer - what would you do?


Incidentally I get sent emails about all sorts of things from various consumer and charitable organisations. I think last year, theft by employees cost businesses nearly two billion pounds - most of it apparently opportunistic, not because they are compulsive thieves (-eg- stealing pens from a school stationery cupboard). Loyalty and work satisfaction reaps dividends in my experience, so creating the right workplace would go a long way to minimising any potential issues - I don't know if that's in the ACAS handbook as I've not read it for ages.

Well off course The correct disciplinary and investigative procedure would be carried out. But based on the Test i gave the only reasonable and fair outcome would be to sack the Supervisor for Theft and Fraud, and give the Young Lad an informal warning. Because the young lad did not knowingly commit theft, nor was it his intention to do so (And that is the KEY POINT here and in the SD's case) As in both the test and the SD case, they were merely albeit naively, under the assumption they were permitted to do so, as a person higher in the company than themselves had said it was, regardless as to what was in company policy etc. To sack someone who did not knowingly commit theft, would be unfair and it would be to the employer to prove it was theft, when its clear in law for it to be theft the culprit has to had committed the act knowing that it was theft.

Hi,

May I add my musings.

From a criminal law pov, & the actus reus & mens rea involved.

Actus reus.
Can the property in dispute be identified?
If so, has appropriation occured?
Appropriation - 'any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to appropriation, and this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner'. (Theft Act 1968 s3.1)
Did it belong to another?
I think I would look at R v Gomez (1993) and Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid (1993), as 'Reid' specifically concerned theft from an employer.

Once the actus reus is established, was there the necessary mens rea?
Here, as I'm reasonably sure our 'bluebottle' would state, the test would be R v Ghosh (1982).
It is an objective test, that of the ubiquitous 'reasonable person'; the jury must ask themselves 'was the act dishonest, & if so, in their (the jury's) opinion should the defendant have realised it was dishonest?'
It must be noted, therefore, that the 'defendants' own perception is disregarded & substituted by that of 'the reasonable person'.

My take on that is that it would be irrelevant that others were doing the same, or that it had become habitual or common practise, although that could be a mitigating factor if pleading guilty.
However, for completeness, I reckon you would also have to consider whether there was undue influence involved, though I suspect that it would need to be more than just 'going along with the others' - it would probably require an element of having to do so, against your usual better judgement, for some pressing reason.

As far as the workplace is concerned, my understanding is that if the employer has reasonable suspicion of a breach of contract, especially one which goes to the root of it (& theft would be one of these, as it breaches loyalty/fidelity/trust), then there are a range of options available.
One of these is usually instant dismissal for gross misconduct (this is on the list of 'default' reasons in the ACAS Code).
If this is so, the ET is unlikely to substitute their own finding in place of that of the employer's, although they would be obliged to consider whether it was an available option open to a reasonable employer; if it was available, then it is quite permissible for the employer to act as they feel fit.

Just my ramblings!

Yes, that's all true.

But what the manager has done, in the SD's case, is they have permitted all many of staff to do this for quite some time, and was likely manipulating the stock (Fraud) to cover it up. And as the Manager actually represents the employer, then all the members of staff have been led to believe that the Company finds it acceptable due to the manager consenting and permitting it, and possibly even doing it himself. An ET would take that in to consideration and whether the SD was treated fairly and the same as others. In this case no she would not have been treated fairly or as the same as others, as she would have been singled out whilst the rest were not punished at all. Plus the SD did not knowingly commit theft nor was she knowingly an accessory to theft, due to the manger allowing it to be standard practice in her workplace.

I cannot believe some of what im reading? Its acceptable to steal or pass goods over to another that should have been paid for because others are doing the same.
So I work for a company and I believe others are committing crimes say racially abising another worker I can do the same ,may not be theft but still a crime how on earth can this girls and others in that company can claim that as a defence .
Is there legislation in this country that allows a crime to be committed cos others are doing the same very unlikely

Racial abuse is totally different, it falls under equality act 2010 and is a breach of employment laws as well as criminal.

Theft does not fall under employment laws but criminal - The person suspected of it must be proven with reasonable belief as having committed said theft knowingly and must not be used as a scape coat or treated less favorable as others who have done the exact same. This is where people are getting confused, they see what to them is an act of theft yet don't see the full situation, that being the manger allows all staff to do this in the SD workplace including the manger him/herself, therefore making it standard procedure in that branch and therefore anyone doing this is doing so under the assumption it was allowed by the company since the manager is the companies representative and is basically saying allowed. Therefore the SD was not knowingly committing theft or knowingly an accessory to theft and was merely going about her day to day work, unaware that's she was doing anything wrong in the eyes of her manager or employer.

You can not sack someone for theft when there actions came about as a result of their manager permitting such conduct in the first place, leading them and the whole work force (all of whom have been doing the same) in that branch to believe the company was ok with them doing so. To do so would be unjust and unfair. It could also not only lead to unfair dismissal claim but a claim based on where you treated them less favorable than other members of staff that were also doing the same. Yes naivety is not a defense, but then you can not sack someone for doing what their manager had said or allowed as being standard practice of all members of staff in the workplace. Therefore the only person the company can take action against would be the manager for allowing, consenting or starting said practices under his/her watch in the work place.

The company in question probably wasn't aware how deep the roots of this matter went (Guiven what the OP stated in one post about the Manager and the other member of staff not seeing eye to eye) and thought it was just a case of one act of theft where the SD had failed to put the other member of staffs items through the till in breach of policy. They, by the sounds of things, may now be starting to realise that there is more than meets the eye here as to what is going on at this particular branch. Hence why they have offered to SD an appeal hearing, despite having accepted her resignation, which means in can not be an appeal hearing in any case since no formal disciplinary procedure was completed (that am aware off).

Whats interesting is they have an outside area manager that will be present along with "have a colleague present as a Management witness and note taker" (though standard practice for a note taker to be present) - Which says to me they are taking the matter very seriously now and have purposefully not allowed SD own area manager to be involved in order to keep it confidential and maintain a level off independence from the original investigation and person(s) involved. They may even suspect the other area manger was aware of what was going on too. Too me they want to know what the SD knows, and that too me means she has a chance of getting her job back if they are treating this as an appeal hearing. So its vital she takes copies of all her evidence with her, and asks that her Step Dad be Present at the meeting since she is not currently an employee or member of a trade union.

Yes this is still going on and is now a game of "letter tennis" as so nicely put earlier in the thread. I am now getting angry as each letter claims something different and comes from one of three different people.
"we" are going to have one last go and then "I" as the angry step dad am going straight to the CEO, in writing telling absolutely everything, names, dates, texts, word for word dates and times. In other words I am blowing the lid of the whole lot and then we walk.
Before that I have one question that I would appreciate a bit of guidance on.
They have offered an appeal hearing with another Area Manager who will "have a colleague present as a Management witness and note taker. She, my SD, can take another employee or union rep.
As she is no longer employed by them, everyone else at the meeting will be in the company's employment and the only employees she can take will be named in the meeting that leaves a having a union rep and that she does not have.

Does this mean she can bring anyone who is a trade union rep?

Is there any reason why, under the circumstances, I cannot accompany her instead as she is no longer an employee?

MissFM sums up the situation quite well in her two post here:

Peter P

Sorry can't offer a legal solution but FWIW I'm absolutely with you and your SD on this. What she did may be wrong but appears to be an entrenched part of that workplace culture and she is no doubt young and impressionable. It has taken courage for her to admit guilt and to speak out. I bet they're not paid much and this practice is unofficially presented as a perk of the job.

Sometimes it really is worth smacking it to the hypocrites, just for the satisfaction...

:evil: x

Unfortunately "they" are highly unlikely to apologise in case it were to be seen as an admission of wrongdoing and that would expose them to litigation. Ranks will be closing.

To whom are you writing?

Only the most senior are likely to have the confidence and job security to react on a more human level. Perhaps a cri de coeur to the CEO stating the facts and saying that you would appreciate an apology for the breach of confidentiality but are not seeking an admission of guilt - and that your SD should, in all conscience, have a decent reference?

In mitigation for your SD's error of judgment in helping her colleague to steal, there is the fact that the practice was so endemic that anyone coming into the work place would assume it to be tacitly condoned. As you say above, they should be glad of this opportunity to clean up the ethos.

SD's record of hard work and her sincere regret that she participated in (was drawn into) the customary dishonesty would also be worth mentioning.

I agree with Labman et al that anyattempt at legal redress would be an own goal.

I personally do find a strong letter and a virtual poke in the goolies to mine enemies to be cathartic, even if there is no tangible result (beyond the obvious) - but not everyone feels this way.

Also the fact their was a clear breach of data protection means they could face actions form SD in any case, as clearly she resigned not because of the allegations, which she will have (in my opinion, since she never stole anything herself in this case) been likely to have only got a warning, either formal or informal. But because of the breach of confidentiality which amounts to breach of data protection and breach of contract, SD would have grounds to claim for constructive dismissal. Which is something the SD can use as ammo at the Appeal Hearing. Not to mention the fact that if she reports it to the ICO, that the company could face not just bad press but a fine in the Tens of thousands too!!

And of top of that the SD has a possible case for slander given the breach of confidentiality has lead to people being told that she was sacked for theft. Granted we need to know exactly what the company told its staff, in regards for the reason they were going to dismiss her, if anything. Though even then the company is liable for slanderous comments made by their employees in any case, even if what the employees state is not an exact repetition to what the company told the staff.