Employee Theft

[jhowe60]

I have recently taken over a business which employs 4 people and have taken them on under the TUPE agreement. I'm now 4 months down the line and find that one or all of them are thieving from the business, but I can't prove which one, or how many of them. Can I get rid of all of them and start again?

 

[ScottishInvestments]

You must be joking, right?

ScotInvest

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Sack potentially innocent people you mean? why can you not find out which of them is stealing? What have you done to discover what is going on?

 

[PI Guy]

Well yes you can do it. It's called some other significant reason.

It causes problems though in that the innocent will sue you.

Why can't you catch the thief?

 

[jhowe60]

I've already tried to catch them by putting in control systems on the tills and the way they serve people, but I can't stand at the side of them 24/7. They've been employed by the previous owner for over 5 years each. Looking at the accounts and the GP the business gets, it's being going on for years. They all were given good references by the old owner as well.

 

[Frank Nesbitt]

To sack them without carrying out a thorough investigation will ultimately cost you more when they effectively sue for unfair dismissal. Any employment lawyer/advisor will tell you that. It would be fairly easy to determine who is at fault although that initially may cost you. The cost shouldn't debar you from an enquiry and more importantly employment law in fact encourages you to do so. As an employer you also have the right to do so. You could involve the Police from the outset although the response may well be sluggish or engage a competent firm to do it on your behalf capable of producing a file of evidence to the Police in a format that they can run with to conclusion. Thats if you favour a criminal route solution. For a civil action and the more feasible route to seek recompense for lossage then you'll need an outside firm. For disciplinary only i.e. sacking you'll need to still do an enquiry to present to the thief/thieves. Be wary that whatever method you decide to use doesn't tip them off. Unless of course you call them all in either together or individually and say "Ok I believe I have a problem, who dunnit or/and when I catch etc" If you want to discuss this drop me a private email and I'll telephone you... Good luck.. Quo Vadis.. Frank

 

[payrolloxford]

I've already tried to catch them by putting in control systems on the tills and the way they serve people, but I can't stand at the side of them 24/7. They've been employed by the previous owner for over 5 years each. Looking at the accounts and the GP the business gets, it's being going on for years. They all were given good references by the old owner as well.

In the unlikely event that you are able to successfully dismiss the current employees, surely unless you have robust security in place, you will always have doubts about the honesty of your new employees? I would ask around for advice as to the best controls to put in place, and then begin to implement them. Keep all the staff involved and up to date with any changes and you may find that only one or at most two people are acting dishonestly - and they will probably leave of their own accord.

 

[ITsoldUK]

For those that don't know, here is TUPE explained => http://www.out-law.com/page-448

Short answer....NO

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

but I can't prove which one, or how many of them. Can I get rid of all of them and start again?

If you have conducted a thorough investigation but can't establish who is responsible/innocent, you can actually dismiss all that may be thieving. The innocent may get caught up with the guilty, but these things happen.

For those that don't know, here is TUPE explained => http://www.out-law.com/page-448

Short answer....NO

TUPE has no relevance to the situation - it's gross misconduct, and any employer would be following standard disciplinary procedures.



Karl Limpert

 

[rachel_HRSolutions]

Yes, as long as you have a thorough and robust investigative process you can justify a reasonable belief that they may all be participating in the theft. I would advise having an impartial person carry out the investigation in the first instance to ensure fair process.

 

[PI Guy]

Exactly right (last two posters). Good luck with it and if you need someone that has 17 years experience in retail loss prevention investigating this very thing, I can recommend...me!

 

[ORDERED WEB]

I have dealt with this a lot in the past

1. Dvide and conquer.. separate the staff if you can, and audit at the end of each shift
2. Show intent. I used to sling 17p in the till, expecting to find the till over by 17p. If they know you are spot checking, they will think twice
3. Have it out in a staff meeting, discuss the discrepancy, explain it is understood and being investigated
4. Look at your systems. SKU codes, stock checks, check random lines. make sure that the systems are 100% and water tight
5. use a mystery shopper.
6. start regular staff appraisals now, deal with all discipline issues immediatally, record everything, start a regime of BTW interviews and the like
7. install CCTV over the till, the doors and stock. IP CCTV tech is now cheap and can stream out of the building
8. invest in stock tags
9. implement a clear bag policy - everyone uses a clear see through bag, no handbags, no carrier bags, no shoulder bags

In other words, collectively, and managerially, get on their cases, and let them know you are on the case

 

I have recently taken over a business which employs 4 people and have taken them on under the TUPE agreement. I'm now 4 months down the line and find that one or all of them are thieving from the business, but I can't prove which one, or how many of them. Can I get rid of all of them and start again?

Have you proof that theft is taking place?

 

[internetspaceships]

Can't it also be made unofficially clear that "dobbing in" the guilty party will benefit the others?

If they do this and all are guilty then the first will squeal on the rest anyway.

 

[Spearmint]

When I was student many moons ago, employment law was part of the syllabus, and I distincly remember a legal case which set a precedent.

The case was Monie v Coral Racing 1980.

Basically, an employer realised that one of his two staff was stealing, so he fired them both. Presumably, the innocent party took his employer to a tribunal, but surprisingly he was unsuccessful. It was an important case, but it would be worth checking to see if it still applies today.

Here is a link I found for it.

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide?startpage=data/97c8.htm

I'd be interested to know if it still applies.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I'd be interested to know if it still applies.

Along with Whitbread v Thomas (was it three employees dismissed?), and Parr v Whitbread (the thief was one of four, and all four staff were dismissed), Monie does still apply.



Karl Limpert

 

[Davek0974]

I have dealt with this a lot in the past

1. Dvide and conquer.. separate the staff if you can, and audit at the end of each shift
2. Show intent. I used to sling 17p in the till, expecting to find the till over by 17p. If they know you are spot checking, they will think twice
3. Have it out in a staff meeting, discuss the discrepancy, explain it is understood and being investigated
4. Look at your systems. SKU codes, stock checks, check random lines. make sure that the systems are 100% and water tight
5. use a mystery shopper.
6. start regular staff appraisals now, deal with all discipline issues immediatally, record everything, start a regime of BTW interviews and the like
7. install CCTV over the till, the doors and stock. IP CCTV tech is now cheap and can stream out of the building
8. invest in stock tags
9. implement a clear bag policy - everyone uses a clear see through bag, no handbags, no carrier bags, no shoulder bags

In other words, collectively, and managerially, get on their cases, and let them know you are on the case

I quite like these suggestions. Are we talking stock theft or skimming the till?? We use the clear-bag/no-bag rule in our sensitive areas, it makes sense.

Whatever you do dont ignore this, it sets a precedent that you dont care about it.

 

[Spearmint]

Along with Whitbread v Thomas (was it three employees dismissed?), and Parr v Whitbread (the thief was one of four, and all four staff were dismissed), Monie does still apply.



Karl Limpert

I still think its pretty harsh for the innocent parties, but are there many employers out there that still deploy this strategy?

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

I guess this could be also used by unscrupulous employers to get rid of a few employees.

 

[ORDERED WEB]

I quite like these suggestions. Are we talking stock theft or skimming the till?? We use the clear-bag/no-bag rule in our sensitive areas, it makes sense.

Whatever you do dont ignore this, it sets a precedent that you dont care about it.

Add to that - not allowing personal cash, purses, cards, wallets on the shop-floor. That's what lockers are for, and there should be CCTV in the locker room

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

Many many years ago when I was a poor student I worked as a Croupier to earn some extra money. We were issued trousers and shirts to wear that didn't have pockets. Two reasons for the trousers, obviously it removes the ability to slip a chip into the pocket, but it also prevents staff from standing around with their hands in their pockets.

 

[internetspaceships]

I still think its pretty harsh for the innocent parties, but are there many employers out there that still deploy this strategy?

Harsh? Get the innocent ones to snitch on the guilty one then.

If they want their jobs that badly.....

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I still think its pretty harsh for the innocent parties, but are there many employers out there that still deploy this strategy?

I'm not familiar with many employers that would need to employ this strategy (and it would have to be a need, rather than be a crutch to achieve a wider goal), but the option is there if needed, and providing the employer has conducted a proper investigation - done all they can to identify the innocent from the guilty - no reason why it shouldn't be used.

It might be harsh on the innocent employees, but so too is theft against the employer, and if that was allowed to continue there may be no jobs for any of them.



Karl Limpert

 

[Spearmint]

Harsh? Get the innocent ones to snitch on the guilty one then.

If they want their jobs that badly.....

The innocent parties may not even know that one of their colleagues is stealing.

I did wonder about the following scenario

As the case I referred to before is still applicable, is there any reason why an employer can't call all of the suspects in to a meeting, and tell them that he is aware that one or more of them are stealing. Give them all a copy of the case law I referred to, and tell them that if this continues they'll all be sacked!

I've decided to defer writing that book on how to win friends and influence people!

I thought I'd just throw this one into the pot to see what comments come back!

 

[Steve Sellers]

Missed this thread but would like to add my tuppence.

OP whilst you would be quite within your rights to dismiss all of the employees you reasonably suspect may be involved, it is not an all or nothing process. There is no necessity for you to dismiss all of them just because you do not know which on of them is responsible. You can apply common sense and differentiate between these employees if you can not identify the actual offender. Therefore if you reasonably suspect one of the group isn't involved then you don't need to dismiss them also for the fair reasoning behind the decision to still apply.

It has now been over a week since you posted. What did you do in the end?

 

[jhowe60]

Thanks to everyone that posted on my query. I've told all the staff about the problem and banned them from drinkiing during work, which was acceptable with the previous employer, I've made them issue receipts, I've also banned them from the premises whilst on their day off. Plus I also have CCTV and a few friends who drop in to watch the staff work. It's made things better, but probably warned the person to be more careful. Watch this space.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

If your actions have made them aware you know, then that in itself may be enough.