1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
iuspect's sacking unfair says tribunal
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LORRY driver who was dismissed for suspected dishonesty by e Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd has been awarded £3,825 Impensation for unfair dismissal by a Liverpool industrial ibunal after they ruled that the company had failed to vestigate the matter properly.
The driver concerned M F orrnain was employed at the !gional distribution centre at arton head office and was igaged on delivering goods various retail branches benging to Co-operative Retail Tvices Ltd.
On January 16 he was in.ructed to deliver to three tail branches and to pick up )me cartons of wine and ants for returning to the disibution centre. Having )mpleted the three drops he turned to the depot at t.30pm.
Meanwhile at 12.25pm the anager of the distribution !ntre, Mr Pugh, received a lephone call saying that .ree members of the staff at le of the branches to which fr Dormain had develiered id noticed a box of tea and a )x of coffee on his vehicle. When they asked him about Lem he had said they were .ing returned to the disibution centre. Mr Pugh instructed the warehouse floor manager to check the vehicle immediately on its return. However it was not checked until 15 minutes later and no tea or coffee was found. When interviewed Mr Dormain denied he had had tea and coffee on his vehicle and after being told he was being suspended he asked for the police to be called in.
After considering the facts, the company's security officer said he believed that Mr Dormain had stolen the goods and he understood that the police intended to prosecute. As a result Mr Pugh decided to dismiss him.
The tribunal said it was satisfied that it was reasonable for the company to regard stealing its property as conduct warranting dismissal and that when he dismissed Mr Dormain, Mr Pugh had believed that he was guilty.
However it was satisfied that Mr Pugh had a reasonable grounds for so believing. Natural justice demanded that when an employee was accused of dishonesty a proper and reasonable investigation should be carried out.
Mr Pugh knew that despite his instructions that the vehicle be examined immediately on its return it was not examined until 15 minutes later. He had not interviewed any of the employees who were said to have seen the goods on the vehicle at the retail branch and he had relied upon information from a security officer who said he believed Mr Dormain to be guilty.
It was clear that one of the factors had played a large part in this Mr Pughs believe of Mr Dormains guilt was that he had not called at the branches in the order originally laid down.
If Mr Dormain had been asked about this he would have explained that was because the warehouse manager had given him subsequent instructions.
The tribunal noted that Mr Dormain was later found not guilty on charges relating to the incident brought by the police at Crown court.