Wrongly handled?

[wales01man]

Re: Wrongly handled?

I was referring to what could be a defence for any criminal act If the manager was fiddling stock levels would this not be picked up by the stock control computer programs Teaboy do you condone the actions of the OPs SD because as you say they were all at it ?

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

I was referring to what could be a defence for any criminal act If the manager was fiddling stock levels would this not be picked up by the stock control computer programs Teaboy do you condone the actions of the OPs SD because as you say they were all at it ?

It depends on how the manager fiddled the stock levels - bear in mind that the items taken in this case would differ per member of staff and would not all be the same item. therefore it would be relatively easy to write the stock of as damaged and no one would be none the wiser. Where as per my test question all the items where the same products therefore it was spotted that an higher than usual number where being written off.

I don't condone any act of thewft that is committed knowingly, but i do not think people should be punish just because they were naive either. End of the day who is the real culprit at fault in SD's case? Is it SD and the other staff members? Or is it the manager? My answer is it is the manager that is at the root off all that is going on, and therefore to kill a weed you have to kill the root!

If the company sacks the SD or the other member of staff, then they would also have to sack the rest of the staff members too in my view!

Sd's defence is simple, they did not knowingly committed theft or knowingly acted as accessory to theft, as to them it was standard practice permitted by the manager! Granted maybe the manager was weak and simply allowed staff to walk over them and allowed the staff themselves to manipulate stock levels of items they took. In which case the Manger is not fit to be in the position as a manager.

[wales01man]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Ignorance is no defence?

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Ignorance is no defence?

True, its not - But sacking someone for something that their manager or supervisor had permitted/allowed or told them and/or others to do, or they could do, is neither fair, reasonable or justifiable, as actual overall liability lies with the manager for permitting it in the first place - And that's where the real defense lies. Hence why it is the manager that should be held accountable and not the staff members.

If a manager in any work place give their staff the opportunity to take items of stock for free, they would all jump at the chance!! We all like a bargain especially when its free, right?! That is what has clearly happened here, due to either a weak manager allowing staff to walk all over them, or a manager taking advantage of his/her position whilst allowing others under him/her to do the same.

In this case SD's company have a choice to make:

A) Do they dismiss SD even though she was only doing what the manager had permitted all staff to do under his/her management. And risk facing a claim for Unfair dismissal and less favorable treatment
B) Do they dismiss all staff members.
C) Do they dismiss the manager for allowing this to happen and then retrain all staff members making it clear such actions in future will not be tolerated.

The obvious and fairest way of dealing with this is to choose answer C)

[bluebottle]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Teaboy has summed matters up quite neatly in Post #105. Within the Theft Act 1968, there are what as known as "statutory defences", that is, the law lays down in what circumstances Theft is committed and when it is not. The circumstances Teaboy describes falls within those "statutory defences" in that the defendant was under the belief the complainant consented to or permitted it. And whilst the view that management knew it was going on and are attempting to use someone as a scapegoat is speculation, it is not beyond the realms of possibility, nor is it to say that it doesn't go on.

The current maximum fine for breaching data protection is Ł500,000.

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Teaboy has summed matters up quite neatly in Post #105. Within the Theft Act 1968, there are what as known as "statutory defences", that is, the law lays down in what circumstances Theft is committed and when it is not. The circumstances Teaboy describes falls within those "statutory defences" in that the defendant was under the belief the complainant consented to or permitted it. And whilst the view that management knew it was going on and are attempting to use someone as a scapegoat is speculation, it is not beyond the realms of possibility, nor is it to say that it doesn't go on.

The current maximum fine for breaching data protection is Ł500,000.

Thanks Bluebottle - You simplified what i was trying to explain in employment terms in regardless to fairness, reasonableness and justifiable reason needed for dismissal in this case, which their is none in my opinion, with what you have just stated regarding "Statutory defense" to theft in criminal law. As such defence would certainly apply in employment matters too.

[labman]

Re: Wrongly handled?

The ACAS handbook - I've just read the relevant bit again, would, in all probability, reach the outcome specified by Teaboy.

Having said that, using the handbook, each case is judged on its own merits, and without a full investigation, we don't know what conclusions would be reached. Length of service, etc... would all be taken into account, as indeed would the individuals own statement. :beagle:

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

The ACAS handbook - I've just read the relevant bit again, would, in all probability, reach the outcome specified by Teaboy.

Having said that, using the handbook, each case is judged on its own merits, and without a full investigation, we don't know what conclusions would be reached. Length of service, etc... would all be taken into account, as indeed would the individuals own statement. :beagle:

Thanks for confirming that mate.

Theres still hope for the OP's SD to get her job back if she wants it back, which given the current state of the job market, i think she should. It will even put the gossipers in there place too as it will show she committed no wrong doing that she is being alleged to have done.

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

WOW!! What a interesting discussion with some very valuable points.
My SD has been banging on the door of the HR department for too long now with no sign of any progress or rejection. we just going round in circles. I feel as though it's time for me to take over her representation and approach HR directly with a strongly worded letter making it an official complaint against the handling of her situation (not THE situation) and if there is nothing constructive forthcoming taking the matter to the highest level within the company and see what that brings.

[teaboy2]

Re: Wrongly handled?

WOW!! What a interesting discussion with some very valuable points.
My SD has been banging on the door of the HR department for too long now with no sign of any progress or rejection. we just going round in circles. I feel as though it's time for me to take over her representation and approach HR directly with a strongly worded letter making it an official complaint against the handling of her situation (not THE situation) and if there is nothing constructive forthcoming taking the matter to the highest level within the company and see what that brings.

Hold off on that letter for now, at least until you have got the appeal hearing out of the way. In the mean time help your SD put together all the evidence to support her side etc. Also get your SD to contact the company confirming that she will attend the hearing, on the condition that you are allowed to attend with her as her representative. Though if you do attend, keep calm and remain constructive and cooperative at all times, to avoid making the situation worse or being seen as uncooperative, which will show in the notes - Also ask for a copy of the meetings notes to be sent to you, whilst also making your own notes.

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Thanks for the advice teaboy2. I agree with your post. I was being made redundant once and they asked would I work for another month or would I like to go straight away. I was so angry and upset I told them I would go straight away as others wanted me even if they didn't, bravado!. At the 2 day tribunal hearing that angry remark went against me and in the long run possibly lost me my case.

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Bear in mind the type of companion usually allowed.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2177

14. The chosen companion may be a fellow worker, a trade union representative, or an official employed by a trade union. A trade union representative who is not an employed official must have been certified by their union as being competent to accompany a worker.

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

Thanks for that charitynjw, but 15 says
. To exercise the statutory right to be accompanied workers must make a reasonable request. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. However, it would not normally be reasonable for workers to insist on being accompanied by a companion whose presence would prejudice the hearing nor would it be reasonable for a worker to ask to be accompanied by a companion from a remote geographical location if someone suitable and willing was available on site.

I feel in this case as she is (A) no longer employed by them (B) any employee is not going to be impartial in such a situation because they want to keep their job and (C) she is not in, or has access to a trade union rep therefore the "reasonable request" could be invoked.
The company have referred to the situation as grievance procedure and an appeal and in reality it nether, it's a formal complaint, or am I splitting hairs?

[charitynjw]

Re: Wrongly handled?

If you do not use the mechanisms available via statute/code of practice, could the employer not just refuse to enter into or continue with any discussion on the subject?

[peter p]

Re: Wrongly handled?

If you do not use the mechanisms available via statute/code of practice, could the employer not just refuse to enter into or continue with any discussion on the subject?

Point taken.