An employee accused of stealing a soft drink and then dismissed has been awarded over £20,000 by the tribunal.
Miss Stokes (S) began working for Poundland (P) as an assistant manager in 2009. Within a year she was promoted to store manager and what followed was an unblemished disciplinary record. However, on 13 June 2017 the area sales manager, and another store manager entered S’s office without warning and told her they were there to conduct a disciplinary investigation.
P’s senior management had been notified that S had stolen a soft drink from stock. This allegation had been made at 4.30pm on 9 June 2017. On hearing the details, S stated that she believed the accusation was malicious and connected to capability proceedings which she had personally conducted that involved another member of staff. S felt it was “no coincidence” that those proceedings had been held at 2.30pm on 9 June 2017.
The manager ignored S’s concerns and advised her that there was CCTV footage which showed her taking and consuming the drink. A formal investigation meeting was arranged. During this meeting S again raised the possibility that the allegation was malicious and unfounded, but the employee was never formally interviewed. All that existed from him was an e-mail which stated he had seen S “with a bottle of drink, one from the four-pack juice we sell” and had “put two and two together”. J produced no investigatory report following the meeting with S.
Poor Investigation
Nevertheless, formal disciplinary proceedings were commenced. Throughout this process, S requested the full CCTV footage of the alleged theft. They only disclosed a few seconds of footage which showed her holding a soft drink. S explained this was out of date stock she was removing from the shop floor. In addition to the absence of CCTV footage, no other employees were interviewed, particularly those who would have been present at the time of the alleged incident.
Decision made
S was dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal. The tribunal noted that the disciplinary investigation – which should have been “very thorough” due to the nature of the allegation – was seriously “flawed” and biased. It found that S had been unfairly dismissed due to procedural errors on the company’s part and awarded her £20,930 plus £2,000 towards her legal costs
This confirms the need for a full and thorough investigation. Anything less than this may land you in a sticky situation as Poundland found out.
For any further advice or information please contact the team here at SFB Consulting. Our offices are based in Bishop’s Stortford and London, but we offer our services and consultancy UK wide.
T:01279 874 676