Taking Carrier Bags Without Paying: Why You Can Get the Sack

An Employment Tribunal found that it was reasonable to dismiss an employee who did not pay for several bags for life even though the employee had long service, and the value was low. 

Case Overview

Nikame Doffou had worked for Sainsbury's for around 20 years. He was seen on CCTV taking bags for life after selecting the 'no bags' option at checkout. He took multiple trips to get more bags and checked his receipt at the end. 

Sainsburys have a zero-tolerance policy to theft.

At a disciplinary hearing, the CCTV footage was played, and Mr Doffou accepted that he had taken the bags without paying. He said he was tired and unintentionally clicked the button for no bags. He denied stealing them.

Disciplinary Action and Appeal

Ms Shaffi, who was responsible for evaluating the evidence dismissed Mr Doffou for gross misconduct. She took into account the CCTV footage, his receipt, and his explanations, in which he said stress, tiredness, and a language barrier had contributed to his mistake.

She concluded that he had not acted in error, perhaps absent-mindedly, but he had been dishonest and deliberately not paid for the bags, perhaps thinking they were low value items that did not really matter. This meant they could no longer trust Mr Doffou as an employee, even if the bags did not cost as much as his shopping. 

Mr Doffou appealed. 

The decision was reviewed by someone who did not know Mr Doffou and upheld because there was sufficient evidence that non-payment was deliberate and not a mistake due to stress, fatigue or a language barrier. 

Mr Doffou brought a claim for unfair dismissal. He accepted that he was dismissed due to conduct but said that the investigation had not given enough weight to mitigation and the dismissal was outside of the band of reasonable responses. 

Tribunal's Ruling

At the Tribunal, the judge said that Sainsburys had carried out a reasonable and proportionate investigation and Mr Doffou was given a full opportunity to respond. The judge found that his explanations were not credible, and his employer was entitled to conclude that this was misconduct, notwithstanding the low value of the bags taken. 

Once the decision maker had concluded that the claimant had acted dishonestly and committed theft, the Tribunal said it was very hard to argue that the decision to dismiss fell outside a reasonable band of responses. They were satisfied that the claimant's length of service and the facts surrounding the case had been considered and that a sanction of dismissal was reasonable. 

What can employers take from the case? 

This case shows that theft, even with a low monetary value, can be an act of gross misconduct leading to dismissal. Employers do not need to disregard 'low value' misconduct. 

During an investigation, it is vital to follow the investigation process and allow the person an opportunity to set out their account. Employers should consider mitigating factors and may choose a lesser sanction, with dismissal also an option. 

This case shows that zero-tolerance policies have repercussions for employees. The policy here was enough to support the dismissal of an employee who had a previously unblemished record. Here, it did not matter that the value of the items taken was small; the breach of trust that it created was a valid reason for dismissal. 

Proactive steps for employers 

1.   Investigation Processes: A major factor in this decision was that Sainsbury's had carried out a clear investigation, and the person was given a full opportunity to respond. It is important to make sure that there is a clear investigation process and that there is documentation to support it and any decisions made.

2.   Education and Training: Training is an important and often overlooked tool for Employers. It can raise awareness and reduce occurrences of misconduct, as well as ensure disciplinary processes are followed.

3.   Regularly Review and update policies: Up to date and regularly reviewed policies can also assist in raising awareness and discouraging misconduct.