What harm can two jam tarts make?
The Employment Appeals Tribunal decided an employee was fairly dismissed when jam tarts were found missing from a packet. The man in question, Moran, worked in the warehouse for Keeling’s Logistics Solutions, who operated as a distribution company for the supply of goods to just one customer.
An investigation was carried out when the security manager saw Moran and a colleague “acting suspiciously” beside an open cage, containing boxes of jam tarts. He claimed to see the cage being moved and that he saw the men eating something and putting their hands inside the cage. The investigation found that Moran had tampered with a packet of jam tarts and two individual tarts were missing. CCTV footage was reviewed and the men claimed that they were sharing a Mars bar and denied eating the jam tarts.
Finding
The employer had a strict policy that no stock would be consumed on the warehouse floor and installed vending machines on the shop floor to prevent staff tampering with and eating their stock. The employer carried out a disciplinary procedure and dismissed Moran, who then appealed the decision but lost. The EAT found that Moran’s evidence was not credible and on the balance of probability that he did tamper with the stock.
“The Tribunal also found that there were no procedural defects which would render the dismissal unfair. The investigation, disciplinary meetings and appeal were thorough, fair and objective.”
Learning Points
The importance of having firm policies and applying procedures when dismissing an employee are prominent in this case. 80% of unfair dismissal cases are lost by employers not because they didn’t have a good reason for dismissing the employee but because they have failed to follow fair procedures. As an employer, you do not want to be subject for a hefty unfair dismissal claim that could have been easily avoided.
Bright Contracts - Employment Contracts and Handbooks
Requiring staff to only speak English at work can be lawful
The WRC recently dismissed a claim brought by a Polish employee that alleged she had been discriminated against on the grounds of race. The Complainant in this case was told she had to speak English when working alongside colleagues who did not speak Polish.
The Company in question employed 838 people from 14 countries. The employee was asked by their supervisor to speak English while working on the factory line. The employee subsequently brought a discrimination claim against the Company. The Company argued that there was a business case for having one official language in the business.
The WRC found in favour of the employer based on evidence that they had provided diversity workshops, and had acted in good faith by asking the employee to speak English so as not to exclude other colleagues.
Learning Points
This is an area where employers need to thread carefully in order to avoid discrimination.
Generally, it is possible to limit the use of languages other than English at work, provided that the policy:
- applies to all nationalities
- there are justifiable (and non-discriminatory) reasons for imposing the policy.
Some possible acceptable reasons may include:
- Health and safety implications
- Security risks
- Impact on workplace effectiveness
It is advisable that requests to speak English should only apply to operational activities. Discussions at break times or in the canteen should be exempt.
Bright Contracts - Employment Contracts and Handbooks
