In the case of Miss S Cassidy v Iceland Foods Limited Sharon Cassidy commenced employment with Iceland as a part-time sales assistant in 2004 and worked at their shop in Paisley until she was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2019. The shop in Paisley is a relatively small shop with three to four staff employed there.
On 12 February 2019, the claimant started her shift as usual at 8 am. As there had been a stock count the evening before, Margaret Paterson, senior supervisor, asked the claimant to tidy up the stock left out.
Michelle Lauder, duty manager, started her shift at 10 am. At noon, she was asked to take over from Miss Cassidy when she ended her shift at the checkout. When she was tidying up she found a five pack of single wrapped twirls with only one in it. She asked Margaret Paterson what she should do with it (because it could not be discounted, there being less than 50% of the product left).
This packet was understood by Margaret Paterson to be a pack due to be reduced from the night before which had three twirls in it. Margaret Paterson searched the bin and found two empty twirl wrappers.
Margaret Paterson then checked the CCTV cameras, and she noted that at 10.33 am, Miss Cassidy could be seen picking up the twirls, opening them and handing one to a child in a pram. She is then seen going round to the other side of the checkout, taking something, going under the checkout for a time, and when she stands back up, she appears to eat something and put something into her pocket.
Ms Paterson spoke to David McNicol, area manager, who advised that she should contact HR and that Miss Cassidy should be suspended on full pay pending an investigation into alleged gross misconduct for the theft of company property. Miss Cassidy said that she did not understand the reference to company property but was told nothing further.
Cassidy argued that the Twirls belonged to a fellow employee but the store sacked her. She admitted to everything and emphasised that the chocolate bars were not stock. She said: “We’re always eating each other’s food… it’s not uncommon for sweets to be left at tills.”
The tribunal concluded that management did not properly investigate the situation, which led to Cassidy’s unfair dismissal. The tribunal said: “Miss Cassidy argues there was no reasonable basis on which Iceland could have formed a belief that she knew the items in question were the property of the company, and therefore guilty of theft.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
