Sacked on "suspicion of theft" Advice sought!

Hello everyone advice needed if possible.

A guy from my old place was called in for a disciplinery as one shop he delivered to rang head office sayong they hadnt recieved their tote bin which contains cigarettes etc (although they had signed the paperwork saying they had recieved them)
On the way back to the yard the driver pulled over at a shop to get some cigarettes. The driver also asked to be represented in his disciplinery by another driver but was told by the manager it had to be done there and then so he went in on his on and was sacked on suspicion of theft just wondered is it worth this guy appealing or taking it any further

thanks for taking time and any advice
is appreciated

wondered is it worth this guy appealing or taking it any further

If he is innocent, then a big YES

Is he a member of a union - if not get legal advice quick

The driver also asked to be represented in his disciplinery by another driver but was told by the manager it had to be done there and then so he went in on his own

The company is now in HOT water - it states in LAW that he is allowed to have a work mate of his choice or union rep with him if he wishes

The Right to be Accompanied in Disciplinary and Grievance Hearings
The new right contained in sections 10-15 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 took effect on 4 September 2000. This gives workers attending a disciplinary or grievance hearing, a right to be accompanied by a work colleague or union official. Section 37 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 clarified and widened the role that the person accomanying the worker may play at the hearing. Section 37 took effect on 1 October 2004.
The Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, published by ACAS, came into effect on 4 September 2000 in its entirety (updated 2003). The Code is available on the ACAS website or from ACAS Reader Ltd, tel: 01455 852225.


i’m sorry but if they have signed the paperwork then they have received them. (Has he still got a copy of the paperwork with the signature on? i’m guessing he hasnt but it might be worth getting a copy in case it does go to court or something, this then proves it was delivered)
has anybody questioned the person who signed for them?
have they been sacked?

what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

these are all questions i would be asking (probably while the gaffer is pinned to the wall :laughing:)

are you saying he was basically sacked for stopping to buy ■■■■? thats the feeling i get from your post!

A very similar situation a few years ago with a colleague.

Firstly, you can be sacked for “suspicion of theft”.
Union fought it and a tribunal ruled that the dismissal was in order.

secondly, the company is definately out of order for not allowing a rep in with the accused, union rep or just another driver.
Not sure that is in law, but is in almost all contracts.

Maybe I am being thick, but what is the relevance of him stopping to buy cigs?
was it just to show that he hadn’t stolen any as he had to stop and buy some, or was there another reason for putting it in?

completely unfair, hope it works out for the guy.

Does your mate have a copy of the companies discipllinary procedure? If he can show they haven’t followed it, then it might be worth taking them to a tribunal.

Try seeing it from the employers point of view, the driver could easily have stopped at the shop and sold the cigs to the shop on the cheap.
Many deliveries just sign the paperwork and check later(yes this is wrong) but if the driver new this would happen(not saying he did) he could have taken advantage of this.

IMHO if I was this guy I would first be asking for the “Evidence” of suspicion of theft as even if he hasn,t got the paperwork I would still be going to a tribunal if only to clear my name as he has now been branded a thief by his (ex) employers!

Try telling a future employer that he was sacked for “suspicion of theft” and see if he gets a job with that statement at an interview!

Also if there is a case of theft by implication / suspicion then why weren,t the police called / informed to investigate the matter?

It is irrelevant that he stopped to buy ■■■■ on the way back as he like any other employee is allowed to purchase any goods at any time at any shop or service area etc.

What would the answer be if he bought a paper or sweets and not ■■■■, is he still a suspected thief?

I’ve refrained from posting to this topic in order to allow for the ‘passage of time’ to establish additional facts if, indeed, the company involved actually KNEW who to turn to. :wink:

Martin, I think most us know who your ‘old’ company was, and they are large enough to know (or should know) that the Tobacco Industry has its own Investigative Branch. Along with the fact that packs of cigarettes, whilst not serial numbered, are ‘batch’ numbered, and the fact that a ‘batch’ destined for a supermarket chain is unlikely to appear on the shelves of a local newsagent, etc. Unlikely, but not impossible.

However, whilst such may be possible with an individual brand, it would be ‘beyond belief’ for it occur across the range of brands that would be contained in a ‘tote bag’.

It would be a salient point within any hearing to establish whether the matter had been reported to the Industry investigators and whether they had made any ‘test purchases’ to establish the ‘data trail’ of the seller’s stock, and the result of that ‘trail’.