CHARGE SHEET

Celebi v Scolarest Compass Group

It is a well-established principle that employees should only be disciplined for misconduct with which they have actually been charged. In Celebi v Scolarest Compass Group, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that as the company had only charged Mrs Celebi with loss, it could not dismiss her for theft.

Basic facts

Mrs Celebi worked as a chef manager at a sixth form college for Scolarest, which was paid a fee for providing its catering services. The college then sold the food to pupils and teachers and kept the takings.

On 14 November Mrs Celebi collected £3,400 in cash. She handed the money in a sealed bag over to a Securitas courier, along with the relevant paperwork, which was delivered to the bank with the seal unbroken. The bank reported that only £400 was received.

Scolarest wrote to Mrs Celebi on 16 November telling her that she was suspended as a result of the “loss" of £3000 cash. In January 2007 Mrs Celebi wrote to the company stating that “it appears that I am being accused of theft of £3000”.

The disciplinary hearing finally took place in April and she was dismissed in May 2007 for incorrect reporting of stock figures, failure to follow correct financial procedures and discrepancies in banking.

Mrs Celebi claimed unfair dismissal.

Tribunal decision

The tribunal said that the reason for dismissal was the company’s genuine belief that Ms Celebi was responsible for the loss of £3,000.

As to whether the decision was fair, it said there were sufficient grounds to dismiss her (although it did criticise aspects of the investigation).

It concluded that it was reasonable not to tell Ms Celebi that she was being investigated for the theft (as opposed to the loss) of £3,000, not least because she had made clear that she understood the seriousness of the charge in her January letter.

EAT decision

Quoting from the case of Strouthos v London Underground, the EAT said that “the charge against the ... employee facing dismissal should be precisely framed” and the employee should be found guilty “only of a charge which is put to [them]”.

In this case, the company had not put the charge of theft to Mrs Celebi. Instead it had referred only to “loss”. It could have clarified the position when it received her letter stating that she felt she was being accused of theft, but again had failed to do so.

As the dismissing manager gave evidence to the effect that she believed Mrs Celebi had stolen the money, the EAT said it was not open to the tribunal to find that the reason for dismissal was anything other than “the sole live evidence ... emanating from the decision maker”. It should have therefore made the “clear finding” that the company believed, on reasonable grounds, that she was guilty of theft.

The logical conclusion of a failure to put the allegation of theft to Mrs Celebi was that the dismissal was unfair and remitted the case to the tribunal to consider compensation.