Boohoo Worker Faced Unfair Gross Misconduct Dismissal for Stealing Gum

In Mr Florentin Moraru v Boohoo.com UK Limited, a warehouse operative has succeeded in his employment tribunal claim after experiencing an unfair gross misconduct dismissal. He was accused of stealing in the workplace, but was found to have made an honest mistake. The tribunal held the employer didn’t have reasonable grounds for dismissal, ruling in Mr Moraru’s favour.

Below, we examine precisely what happened before outlining the employment tribunal’s judgment. We then discuss the gross misconduct meaning and whether theft from the workplace counts. Finally, we explore what to do if someone is unfairly dismissed for stealing and the steps they can take to seek justice.

If you’ve faced something similar and want to bring an unfair dismissal claim, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment experts, we can discuss your case, answer your queries and provide specialist advice. We can also assess your claim eligibility and guide those eligible through the legal process.

To begin your journey with us today, simply:

• Phone us on 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form with your details to request a callback

The Facts in Mr Florentin Moraru v Boohoo.com UK Limited

Background to the Gross Misconduct Dismissal

Mr Florentin Moraru (“the Claimant”) began working as a warehouse operative for Clipper Logistics plc on 6 September 2020. However, on 1 July 2022, his employment was transferred to Boohoo.com UK Limited (“the Respondent”).

Issues arose in 2023, after the Respondent received supplies of Mentos chewing gum. The intention was to add gum to customer parcels, but many employees helped themselves to the gum whilst working.

When the Claimant saw colleagues and managers consuming the gum, he believed it was for “general consumption,” and so, too, helped himself. At the time, it was the lead-up to Christmas, and so some employees believed the gum had been left as a festive treat.

Claimant Suspended Following Mentos Stash Discovery

To ensure he could share the gum with colleagues, the Claimant took some packets and stored them under the stairs. Unfortunately, on 12 December, some members of the Respondent’s site services team discovered the stash while cleaning and reported it. This led the Respondent to check the CCTV, which revealed what the Claimant had done.

Upon this discovery, the Claimant was called into a meeting the following day with his team leader, Mr Daniel Wright. He was informed that an investigation into “alleged theft” was underway, and was asked about the Mentos. The Claimant replied, “Yes, of course, is for everybody to share it. I just take it to share it with my colleagues. Nobody told me that is forbidden or something, absolutely.”

Read More: Menopause at Work: Lessons from HSBC’s Inclusive Approach

The Claimant was then asked whether he considered his actions to constitute stealing in the workplace. This time, he replied, stating that he didn’t believe so, since he hadn’t taken the gum home; he shared it with colleagues and noted how “all the people from this warehouse take them.” Nonetheless, he was suspended at the end of the meeting.

In an attempt to justify his conduct, the Claimant asserted that he hadn’t been informed that the gum wasn’t there for worker consumption. Mr Wright responded, stating that a “toolbox talk” had occurred the previous week, informing the workforce of this, and that people had signed to agree to the terms.

Notably, though, the Claimant had neither attended this talk nor signed the accompanying document. In fact, during proceedings, the tribunal learned that the Claimant’s colleagues were only informed of this after he’d been dismissed. For a period of time, only members of the stock control department were made aware of the restrictions concerning the Mentos gum.

Gross Misconduct Dismissal: Claimant Immediately Sacked Following Disciplinary Hearing

On 14 December, Ms Kamila Kmiciewicz, the Respondent’s shift operations manager, invited the Claimant to a disciplinary hearing concerning the alleged theft from the workplace. He was informed that gross misconduct dismissal was a potential outcome of the hearing.

The disciplinary hearing was subsequently held on 20 December. During the meeting, the Claimant explained how he believed the term “thief” was “a little bit hard and heavy,” and offered to provide the names of others who had taken gum. However, Ms Kmiciewicz didn’t want to hear other names, stating, “We are here discussing your case.”

At the hearing’s conclusion, the Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct, namely stealing the Mentos. He wasn’t provided notice or payment in lieu of notice, only the right to appeal. And while the Claimant appealed the decision on 27 December, this proved unsuccessful following a hearing on 10 January 2024.

As a result, the Claimant pursued an employment tribunal case. Among his claims, he alleged unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and direct race discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal considered the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. It began by establishing that he was dismissed for conduct, which is a potentially fair reason. That said, while the Respondent genuinely believed that the Claimant was guilty of the conduct alleged, the tribunal held that it didn’t have reasonable grounds to come to this conclusion.

The Claimant had been honest throughout the process, consistently stating that he didn’t realise the gum wasn’t for general consumption. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to investigate whether other staff, including managers, had been doing the same, leading to the Claimant’s belief. It also didn’t consider that the Claimant hadn’t been given the “toolbox talk,” which his colleagues received only after his dismissal, his service length or his previously clean disciplinary record. With all this in mind, the gross misconduct dismissal was ruled “substantively unfair.”

Since the Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with notice or payment in lieu of notice, despite his conduct not constituting gross misconduct, his wrongful dismissal claim was also upheld. However, with no evidence that the Respondent’s decision was based on the Claimant’s Romanian nationality, his race discrimination claim was dismissed.

Following the success of his wrongful and unfair dismissal claim, the case will now proceed to a remedy hearing to determine his compensation.

What Does Getting Fired for Gross Misconduct Mean?

Under UK law, an employer must have a fair reason for and follow a fair procedure when dismissing an employee. There are several potentially fair reasons for dismissal, including misconduct. Typically, when an employer wants to dismiss someone due to conduct, they must be able to show that:

• They genuinely believed the individual was guilty of the conduct alleged,
• There were reasonable grounds for holding that belief, and
• A reasonable investigation was carried out.

Read More: Chef With Dyslexia Who Struggled to Read Food Orders Wins Disability Discrimination Claim

Notably, gross misconduct is a very serious form of misconduct, including behaviour such as violence, assault and serious dishonesty. Where an employer reasonably believes gross misconduct has occurred, they may be justified in dismissing the guilty party without notice or payment in lieu of notice (known as a summary dismissal). Despite this, they must still undertake a fair disciplinary procedure before dismissing the employee.

Does Theft from the Workplace Count as Gross Misconduct?

Stealing in the workplace often constitutes behaviour warranting a gross misconduct dismissal. That being said, context matters. As in the case involving the warehouse operative above, an incident could be an honest mistake or misunderstanding. To avoid matters escalating to the employment tribunal, employers should look to determine the facts of the case and deal with incidents reasonably.

From Accusation to Action: What to Do After an Unfair Dismissal for Theft

If an employee is unfairly dismissed for stealing in the workplace, as was the case for Mr Florentin Moraru, immediate action is essential. Bringing an employment tribunal claim may only be a last resort, but doing so requires adherence to strict time limits.

Initially, the employee should gather as much evidence as possible. This could include the employer’s written reason for dismissal, emails, CCTV footage, witness contact information, and more. Gathering such evidence is vital in supporting one’s case.

Once the evidence has been collated, the next step is usually to pursue internal remedies. This could include an informal chat with one’s manager or HR, or raising a formal grievance through the employer’s internal procedure. Both avenues offer the opportunity to resolve the matter before legal action is required, thereby avoiding the associated stress and costs.

Where internal remedies fail to provide a satisfactory outcome, though, the next step is generally to initiate Acas early conciliation. This free and independent process is typically required before an employment tribunal claim can be pursued, and offers another chance to find a resolution before a claim may be necessary.

As a last resort, if the above steps are unsuccessful, employment tribunal proceedings can be initiated. To do so, strict eligibility criteria and time limits must be satisfied. If the employee is successful in their claim, they could receive compensation, among other remedies.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve faced a gross misconduct dismissal unfairly, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As specialists in the employment sector, we can analyse your case and provide expert advice. Should you wish to bring an unfair dismissal claim, we can also assess your eligibility and offer guidance.

Begin your journey with us today by:

• Calling 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form