The issue of workplace theft can be problematic for employers and the recent WRC decision in David White v Imac Facilities (Adj 00054005) is a useful case study to explore the importance of a clearly defined policy and of course, due process at all times.

The hearing involved a senior Business Development Manager who lost his case for unfair dismissal, with the Adjudication Officer not accepting that it was a lapse of judgement and determining that his dismissal for taking two bottles of red wine belonging to a client was fair, despite him owning up and returning the wine.

The Complainant’s Company had been hosting a BBQ for a client and some of the stock including 4 cases of wine was left in his office, and when he opened the boxes and noticed they were “nice bottles” he left two on his desk and commented to two staff present in a joking manner not to say anything.

The Complainant the placed the opened box on a trolley and covered the box with full unopened boxes of wine and subsequently brought the two bottles home.

The staff members immediately informed management what occurred as they were worried, they would be blamed, and when the Complainant returned to work, he was asked about the wine and initially denied any wrongdoing but then admitted his “mistake” and returned the two bottles of wine. The Complainant also stated that he had not taken the white wine offered at Christmas and this was in lieu.

The Complainant was suspended and following an investigation by the General Manager, a disciplinary hearing was initiated, with the HR Advisor due to conduct it replaced by another manager.

An external Consultant heard the appeal to the dismissal and upheld it.

The Complainant outlined that he thought his dismissal was severe for one lapse of judgement, and stated he had an unblemished HR record, and had worked hard to build the business, taking phone calls out of hours all the time, working weekends if there are staff shortages, or to oversee an event or to bring in potential client for a site visit.

The Company noted that the two catering assistants said that the Complainant said to them “you did not see anything” when placing the two bottles of wine on his desk, and that he also said “if anyone says anything to you I signed for it” and then he started to laugh.

The Company outlined that they had a zero-tolerance policy and their handbook clearly shows that the theft of any property is deemed to be a gross misconduct matter and that theft, regardless of intent, would result in dismissal.

The Company also considered that a senior manager had placed two junior members of staff in a compromised position as they could have been accused of theft of the bottles of wine, and he had responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner and he should not have attempted to involve other staff in his deception.

The Adjudicator disagreed with the Complainant that the dismissal was disproportionate and, in her findings, stated that he was a senior manager and part of the management team and was responsible for stock and cash handling for the organisation and knew the wine was owned by a client.

The Adjudication Officer also considered that the process followed on the whole was fair.

Some takeaways for employer:

If a zero-tolerance policy is available, this in itself is not enough to effect a dismissal and due process and procedure must still be followed to ensure a fair dismissal:

• Have a zero-tolerance policy documented on theft in your workplace
• Ensure appropriate and separate investigation. disciplinary and appeal stages
• If there is any potential of bias amongst decision makers, remove them from the process.
• Consider the response put forward and document reasons for decision.