Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
This past week my son was escorted out of the Edit store where he works on the Customer Service desk.
He was suspended on the grounds of Misappropriation of Edit stock. However he was not told what stock this was supposed to be, when this was supposed to have taken place or anything else. He was told that he would receive a letter that would inform him the time and place of a meeting pertaining to the allegation and that he could have a union rep or member of staff attend with him. Also that he would be able to have a witness with regards to the allegation.
He contacted the store manager to ask what the full allegation pertained to but was refused the information.
Today he attended the meeting with another staff member with him. The meeting lasted from 1.30pm to 4.30pm. During this meeting he was accused of the intent to steal a usb pen-drive.
He had been given the job (by his manager) to sort out the box containing all the information relating to community charity. As he was unable to have access to the store computers he had informed his manager that he would need a pen-drive to transfer the information/spreadsheet from his home computer so that it could be used in the store.
During the course of one of his shifts at work a pen-drive appeared on the customer service desk (he presumes that it was a return from a customer), he therefore put this drive in the community box, in order to arrange purchase of it for the work. (At this point it is to be noted that the box concerned was not allowed to leave the store and that there was no intention to take the pen-drive without either payment for the item or approval for its use.
However before he was able to do anything else another manager came and removed the box from the customer service desk.
Today he was accused of "intent to steal the pen-drive", please note that the drive is in fact still within the confines of the Edit store and has never left said store.
When he informed the manager conduction the interview that his own manager had knowledge of his request for a pen-drive for doing the work for the Edit community fund, his own manager (who was the one taking the minutes of the meeting), refused to reply and said nothing.
When asked why he put the drive in the box he informed them that as he is dyslexic he tends to forget certain things and by placing the drive there he hoped to remember that he needed to get one supplied. At this point the person conducting the interview questioned the fact that as far as she was concerned dyslexia only involved problems with reading and spelling.
The final outcome of the meeting was that "speaking off the record" the manager conducting the meeting suggested that my son should give in his resignation prior to the next hearing where he would most likely be sacked - however if you resign we will guarantee that you obtain a unblemished reference.
He requested copies of the previous meeting when he was first taken from the store, but was told that he could only have that when he attended the next meeting, he therefore requested that it be posted to him.
During this meeting - as we had previously read a thread regarding Edit discipline procedures and how no one outside the store(including a solicitor) is allowed to attend, he in fact had his phone running in his suit pocket recording the whole interview. So all the comments made to him "off the record" are in fact recorded.
He is inclined to accept her "suggestion" to resign as he no longer feels that even if he manages to fight their decision he will still be tarred with the suggestion that he is a thief. However, whilst I understand his feelings I do not feel that any part of the process has been conducted correctly.
I would be grateful for your take on this situation.
unless he was caught taking it out of the store they dont have a leg to stand on.
Not neccessarily true, although I agree that this is a stretch at best by the company. But I wouldnt go so far as stonewall no leg to stand on just yet.
get the union involved, in fact they should have been there at this meeting
Only if they were made aware and if the OPs son is a member of the union.
7 years in retail customer service
Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years
By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.
Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.
Theft is committed as soon as the dishonest appropriation occurs.
Nothing ever has to leave any store or premises before it has been stolen. Companies tend to allow SCONE to apply to ensure a full conviction in court. Suspicion-Concealment-Observed-Non-Payment-and Exit.
Employers work on reasonable suspicion, they don't need the beyond reasonable doubt that a court of law requires.
Some random thoughts on this one in no particular order........
This really comes down to how a particular action is being interpreted and whether it is "excused" by something your son claims was said to him by his manager (which he/she seems unwilling to confirm).
As has been said above, sadly, the store do not need the level of proof that would be required for a criminal conviction which they wouldn't have a hope of getting.
However they still need to follow proper procedure and have reasonable grounds if they are to dismiss him fairly.
The informal suggestion of "resign and we will give you a good reference" was unwise and will not help their case.
I would keep very quiet for the moment about having a recording of the meeting. It is not illegal but they will not like it one little bit. Some companies even put a clause in their staff handbooks prohibiting this and try to claim that even if one exists it will not be evidence. At the end of the day only a court can decided what is or is not evidence. I don't know if any firm has tried to suggest that making such a recording secretly amounts to misconduct in itself.
That said I would certainly make one in similar circumstances. The cannot search him for recorders at a future meeting against his will as this would amount to assault.
Sadly what you have to decide is where you want to go with this. Realistically they are not going to come to the next meet and say "sorry, all our mistake, please forgive us". Even if they did would he want to continue working there. My guess is they will either sack him or try to look gracious and "only" issue a final warning.
If you really dig your heels in and fight I suspect they will stick to their ground for some time, making all kinds of threats about costs, then offer some kind of compromise with a confidentiality agreement attached. Ultimately they won't go all the way as this is not clear cut enough, it will cost them money they won't get back and they don't like bad publicity.
"speaking off the record" the manager conducting the meeting suggested that my son should give in his resignation prior to the next hearing where he would most likely be sacked.
a) there is here a notion of 'pre-judgement'
b) Your son could rely on the content recorded on his phone - especially about resigning - (in the absence of any "unambigous impropriety" - ie, fraud, blackmail or perjury on the part of the employer - without prejudice communications would be excluded from being used as evidence in proceedings).
c) If he resigns, he would do so under threat, or blackmail... of being 'sacked' most likely...
---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---
***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***
- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -
Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.
Something that hasn't been touched upon yet is that this guy suffers from dyslexia, as he stated at the investigatory meeting.
If it's indeed the case that this goes towards explaining why he put the drive in the box, I think it would be a very strong mitigating factor.
Certainly, on a practical basis, I think it may well persuade the employer to discontinue their action for fear of facing DDA action.
Are you thinking in terms of 'unfairly treated' or 'discriminated against'?
In that case, he would be in a position to prove, and would involve an unnecessary protracted case with long narratives... Nevertheless, the point should be put across...
---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---
***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***
- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -
Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.
I thinking good old unlawful disability discrimination.
If he suffers from dyslexia, and an aspect of his condition is that he has problems with his memory - ie. he put the drive in the box as a visual cue so he could get one later, then that would be a factor they would have to consider.
I think that would be very likely to cause them to drop the matter. Particularly as he aready has the recorded evidence from the IM where the manager stated, 'as far as she was concerned dyslexia only involved problems with reading and spelling'. (Wrong)
There's arguably prejudice towards his condition already - did she request that he elaborate on the nature of his condition?
It has been very difficult to decide what is the best course of action for my son. He was told that for the "off the record" offer to hold he had to resign prior to the next meeting. However he is very aware of the fact that the cards are most definitely stacked against him, and that he is in fact only a very small person against a major supermarket.
Not only that but he feels that even if he should manage to remain in his position he would be forever suffering from comments, innuendos etc.
In this climate he can't afford to have his integrity and honesty at question and the promise of a clear reference is too much to overlook.
To that end he has decided to tender his resignation. However we feel that the resignation should not be used as an admittance of any guilt. To that end a letter has been drafted as such.
Obviously we will not know whether any reference replies from the company to future jobs will be favorable.
Myself my feelings are split regarding this whole distasteful episode. Not least the fact that he has just about been blackmailed into making this decision. I would have liked him to be able to clear his name, and I hate the fact that he was in fact ridiculed regarding being dyslexic. As you have noted here - dyslexia is not just manifested in poor spelling and reading!
Now we are yet again like many other people in the country. Job hunting!!!
Thank you for all your help. It is a great shame that from what I have found out recently that this happens all too often, with companies both big and small re-writing the rule books as they go.
However he is very aware of the fact that the cards are most definitely stacked against him, and that he is in fact only a very small person against a major supermarket.
This can of course work both ways.
There is little a large organisation hates more than being involved in a protracted dispute for what, to them, is petty cash against a determined individual. In a way they can only lose, whatever the outcome.
There is no way this is clear cut enough that they would have any chance of being in the tiny minority that get awarded costs even if they were to win.
You could, if you chose, make their lives hell for months and months. Subject access requests, tribunal orders to disclose, witness orders etc. Plus, say nothing of finding a sympathetic journalist at the local paper.....
Disability discrimination...........
In the end they would pay up and you could also get an agreed reference as part of the settlement that they would have to stick to.
But, only you know what it right for you on a personal level.
He had been given the job (by his manager) to sort out the box containing all the information relating to community charity. As he was unable to have access to the store computers he had informed his manager that he would need a pen-drive to transfer the information/spreadsheet from his home computer so that it could be used in the store.
During the course of one of his shifts at work a pen-drive appeared on the customer service desk (he presumes that it was a return from a customer
did he ever find out where the pen-drive came from
under these circumstances i would have assumed it was the pen drive i had requested as it was put on my desk
I would certainly want to see who put it there
i hate bailiffs would love to put a hex on them all
I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination
any advice given is from my own personal experience and what Ive leaned on this site
and if you are happy with my advice you might like to make me a star
THE EDGE there is no way to explain it the only people who really know are the ones who have gone over and came back
I really feel for the Manager who said he could resign. Not clever.
I have been here as a Manager and done the same and once let three employees resign who had perfect work records and long service when they had bought some knocked off items from another member of staff outside of the workplace.
They claimed they didn't know it was stolen and knowing that they may all be dismissed, I let them all resign to find other jobs with clean records and avoid the D.P process. They then tried constructive against me!!
I really thought I was doing them all a favour. All they did was to educate me to never ever to allow this again, no matter how much I thought of families, mortgages, etc. Taught me a big lesson about people and their own agendas.
I really feel for the Manager who said he could resign. Not clever.
I have been here as a Manager and done the same and once let three employees resign who had perfect work records and long service when they had bought some knocked off items from another member of staff outside of the workplace.
They claimed they didn't know it was stolen and knowing that they may all be dismissed, I let them all resign to find other jobs with clean records and avoid the D.P process. They then tried constructive against me!!
I really thought I was doing them all a favour. All they did was to educate me to never ever to allow this again, no matter how much I thought of families, mortgages, etc. Taught me a big lesson about people and their own agendas.
This is one of the "joys" of being in charge. It is often said that if a ship hits an iceberg then you court martial the captain, not the rating who was steering it, even if the captain was asleep in his cabin at the time.
If somebody feels they have been badly treated by an organisation and want redress then any member of staff is simply a part of the "guilty" party. The more senior you are the more likely it is to be you.
Suppose I have a valid claim against a company for £1000. If, in order to progress that claim I have to show that a member of staff has done something wrong. Depending on the circumstances that member of staff may be sacked as a result. He may lose his house if he can't get another job to pay the mortgage. What would you have me do, give up my valid claim in case there is some collateral damage?
Work "suggests" that son resigns
- however if you resign we will guarantee that you obtain a unblemished reference.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by fantasy firebird
