You are certain it was employees?
Yes, stock has moved from areas where customers are not present and whilst theoretically we have drivers who could have interfered with it, I discount this but from a technical perspective, it would be possible.
We also have interference with the tills, totals, multiple intra day X reports being run, multiple no sale entries to open the tills and mismatched card and cash totals.
One employee has been with us only 6 months, the others for some years. This is an inherited (piecemeal part of a larger deal) unit where the previous owners were not interested and this branch operated largely unchecked.
The stock checking is beyond reproach as I did it.
We also moved business model to prepay from postpay and in every other location there was the same correlation between the uplift in cash and cards, except this location where cash figures actually dropped, which is nigh on a statistical impossibility given card figures responded in line with every other location.
I've found the case law which is:
Monie v Coral Racing Ltd [1980] IRLR 464 CA
The facts
Mr Monie was employed by the respondents as an area manager, having control and supervision over 19 betting shops. Only he and his assistant knew the combination for the safe in the area headquarters. On 1.8.77, Mr Monie called in at the office and then went off on holiday. On 5.8.77, the assistant manager went to the safe and discovered that £1750 was missing. There were no indications that either the premises or the safe had been forcibly entered.
The respondents' security officer interviewed both men and came to the conclusion that one or the other, or both, must have been involved in the theft. He reported this to a director, Mr Batkins, who after interviewing the two employees decided to dismiss them both. In his letter of dismissal, he noted that "since there was no indication at the inquiry which of you was responsible for the cash deficit I had no alternative but to instantly dismiss both of you".
Mr Monie exercised a right of internal appeal, which was dealt with by the managing director, Mr Tucker. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal confirmed, but in giving his reasons Mr Tucker stated that there was no evidence of dishonesty against Mr Monie and that the dismissal was because of his failure to exercise the authorised cash control procedures and to act responsibly.
An Industrial Tribunal found that Mr Monie had been fairly dismissed. The primary ground for so concluding was that on the basis of the reason given at the time of dismissal, rather than the reason given when confirming the dismissal, the employers had "solid and sensible grounds" to infer or suspect dishonesty.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal [1979] IRLR 54 in a reserved decision dismissed Mr Monie's appeal. The EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in finding that where the employers did not know whether Mr Monie or his assistant had stolen the money it was reasonable to dismiss them both on grounds of suspected dishonesty. The correct test, according to the EAT, was not one of suspicion. In accordance with the decision in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379, there must be a reasonable belief in the guilt of the employee.
The EAT went on to find, however, that the employers were entitled to rely upon the different reason given to the employee when his internal appeal against dismissal was rejected. According to the EAT, on this basis, the Industrial Tribunal had correctly held on alternative grounds that the dismissal was fair because of Mr Monie's failure to act responsibly and to exercise the authorised cash control procedures.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Stephenson, Lord Justice Dunn, Sir David Cairns) on 31.10.80, while disagreeing with the reasons given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held
The Industrial Tribunal were entitled to conclude that if an employer in circumstances such as in the present case reasonably believes that a theft is the work of one of two employees or possibly both, but cannot distinguish between them, he can act reasonably if he dismisses both employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred in holding that in such circumstances a reasonable suspicion of the employee's dishonesty was not sufficient to justify dismissal and that an actual belief in his dishonesty was necessary. Where there is a reasonable suspicion that one of two or possibly both employees must have acted dishonestly, it is not necessary for the employer to believe that either of them acted dishonestly.
The test laid down by British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 approved by the Court of Appeal in Weddel v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96 that a reasonable suspicion of misconduct is not enough and that an actual belief in the employee's guilt is necessary was not intended to be of universal application and did not cover a case such as the present one. Ultimately, the test of fairness is that laid down in the statute and is essentially a jury question depending on its own facts.
https://www.xperthr.co.uk/law-reports/monie-v-coral-racing-ltd/47711/
