If your employer really believes you were dishonest, they have to say so to your face.
“You can only be fairly dismissed for dishonesty if your employer actually accuses you of it, in plain words, before the decision is made.”
You can only be fairly dismissed for dishonesty if your employer actually accuses you of it, in plain words, before the decision is made.
- Watch for the difference between being asked about a loss and being accused of theft.
- If you sense dishonesty is the real concern, ask in writing for the exact allegation.
- Keep every letter, since a gap between the written charge and the real reason can make a dismissal unfair.
The situation
A chef manager at a college handled cash takings that were meant to go to the bank by courier. A sum of around 3,000 pounds was reported missing when the bank counted what arrived. The employer suspended and then disciplined the employee, but the paperwork described the matter in neutral terms, as loss of cash, inaccuracy in banking, and discrepancies in stock reporting. The manager who took the decision to dismiss believed the employee had stolen the money, but that belief was never spelled out to the employee as the charge. After a long procedural history, a tribunal found the dismissal fair, and the employee appealed.
What the tribunal found
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the real reason for the dismissal was the decision-maker's genuine belief that the employee had committed theft, not the softer, neutral wording used in the letters. Following Strouthos, it confirmed that someone accused of dishonesty has a fundamental right to have that point made to them directly. Because the charge of theft was never put, the dismissal was unfair. It was also automatically unfair under the statutory procedure then in force, because the first written step never told the employee she was at risk of dismissal for theft. The finding of fair dismissal was set aside and the case sent back on remedy.
Celebi v Scolarest Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd | UKEAT/0032/10/LA | Employment Appeal Tribunal | 28 July 2010