EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (ET):
Note that as an employment tribunal case, this is not binding authority. ET cases may be persuasive on other tribunal decisions, but unlike those courts higher in the system (EAT, CoA, Supreme Court), they do not have to be followed by other courts and therefore the outcome is only indicative of how a similar case might be treated.
Before the ET, the claimant accepted that the respondent had a zero tolerance approach to theft from the workplace. However, they maintained that it was not their intention to steal the bags, but they made an error due to tiredness and they were not aware of what they were doing.
The ET found that the respondent genuinely believed that the claimant was guilty of the misconduct of which they were accused, and that that act constituted theft. It held that a reasonable and proportionate investigation had been carried out and the claimant was given every opportunity to respond to the allegations. The respondent was entitled, the ET held, to find that the claimant had committed an act of misconduct, even though the ‘bags for life’ had a low monetary value.
On the basis that a fair procedure was carried out by the respondent as well as an adequate investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal, the ET dismissed the claim and found for the respondent. Central to this finding was that the respondent sought to understand why the claimant acted as they did, by providing the claimant with every opportunity to explain. The dismissal, the ET concluded, was therefore within the band of reasonable responses and fair.
Accordingly, the ET held that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair, so the claimant lost their claim.
