Driver who plotted theft fairly sacked
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DRIVER accused of stealing from his employers, New Plan Furnine Ltd, was not unfairly dismissed, decided a Leeds Industrial ribunal, and it rejected a claim for compensation.
The Tribunal said it was no art of their duty to determine le guilt or otherwise of Mr Ryan le driver concerned, — that was matter for the criminal courts.
It was guided by the Employment Appeals Tribunal which set out certain precedents in the case of British Home Stores v Burch ell, 1980.
In particular, the employer had to show reasonable grounds for suspecting an employee's misconduct and that thorough investigations had been made.
Last June, New Plan's shop foreman reported that he had been approached by Mr Ryan and another driver, Mr O'Connor, to steal goods, the proceeds to be split between them.
Mr O'Connor admitted the allegations implicating Mr Ryan who, upon questioning, denied any involvement, but was then dismissed. For Mr Ryan, it was argued that inquiries made by the company were insufficient, and that he had not been given the opportunity to consider the precise allegations and to defend himself.
But the Tribunal felt that if the matter had rested only on Mr O'Connor's evidence it might have constituted insufficient grounds for the company's belief. But, ruled the Tribunal, added to the foreman's statement, there was no reason why the allegations against Mr Ryan should have been false.