Shop assistant dismissed for personal transaction on Post Office till: unfair dismissal
A shop assistant with nine years' service was unfairly dismissed after using the Post Office till for a personal transaction. The tribunal found the investigation was insufficient and the dismissal procedurally unfair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #personal-transaction
- #cctv-evidence
- #lack-of-policies
- #insufficient-investigation
- #contributory-conduct
- #wrongful-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Shop Assistant from 20 February 2013 until dismissal on 3 November 2022.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after she performed a personal transaction on the Post Office till on 21 October 2022.
- The respondent had prior suspicions about the claimant due to unexplained losses, but did not investigate properly.
- The claimant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations before dismissal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and procedurally unfair.
- The claimant's conduct in accepting free items and performing the personal transaction was blameworthy, leading to a 20% reduction in compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Shop Assistant.
-
Losses noticed
Mrs Sandhu noticed significant losses on the PO Till, amounting to £3,244.97 between March and July 2022.
-
Hours reduced
Claimant's hours were reduced from 30 to 20 per week, and she was removed from Monday shifts due to suspicions.
-
Meeting about losses
Mrs Sandhu spoke to the claimant about the losses and shift change; the meeting became heated.
-
Cigarette stock concerns
Respondent became concerned about cigarette stock discrepancies and reviewed CCTV.
-
Sandwich and oatcake incidents
CCTV showed claimant accepting free sandwiches and oatcakes from delivery drivers.
-
Personal transaction on PO Till
Claimant used her own card to perform a personal transaction on the PO Till, withdrawing money.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed without notice after a meeting where she was not given prior warning of allegations.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct, and whether the investigation and decision-making process were fair.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The key reasons were:
- The employer had prior suspicions but did not investigate properly.
- The claimant was not given prior warning of the allegations or a fair chance to respond.
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair.
Compensation was reduced by 20% for contributory fault because the claimant's conduct in accepting free items and performing the personal transaction was blameworthy. The exact compensation amount was not specified in the judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must carry out a reasonable investigation before dismissing for misconduct, including giving the employee a fair opportunity to respond.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a more thorough process, especially when the allegations are serious and could lead to dismissal.
- If an employer has prior suspicions, they should investigate those separately and not rely on them to justify a later dismissal without proper process.
- Employees should be aware that accepting free items or using work systems for personal transactions can be considered misconduct and may reduce compensation if they are unfairly dismissed.
When a personal transaction leads to dismissal
A shop assistant with nine years' service was dismissed after using the Post Office till to perform a personal transaction. The employer, Tarsaim and Mandeep Sandhu t/a Station Stores, had been suspicious of the claimant due to unexplained losses on the till, but had not investigated those suspicions properly. The dismissal was based on the personal transaction and earlier incidents where the claimant accepted free sandwiches and oatcakes from delivery drivers.
The tribunal found that the employer's investigation was insufficient. The claimant was not given prior warning of the allegations and was not given a fair opportunity to respond before the decision to dismiss was made. The employer's belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct was not based on reasonable grounds because the investigation was flawed.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have conducted a proper investigation, including giving the claimant a chance to explain the personal transaction and the free items. They should have considered the claimant's long service and clean disciplinary record. A fair process would have involved a meeting with clear notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond, and a proper consideration of any mitigating factors.
Why this case matters
This case shows that even when an employee has done something wrong, a dismissal can still be unfair if the process is not followed properly. The tribunal reduced the compensation by 20% because the claimant's conduct was blameworthy, but the dismissal itself was still unfair. Employers must remember that a fair investigation and procedure are essential, especially for long-serving employees. The case also highlights that prior suspicions do not justify a rushed or unfair dismissal process.
Similar cases
Site manager with 26 years' service unfairly dismissed after owner's family dispute
A site manager with 26 years' service was unfairly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after a breakdown in the relationship between the owner and his son. The tribunal awarded £51,785, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Dismissed for misconduct: 80% reduction for blameworthy conduct
A former employee won her unfair and wrongful dismissal claims against Holland and Barrett, but an 80% reduction for contributory conduct cut her compensation to £3,407.
Deputy manager dismissed over CQC failings: unfair dismissal but 20% contributory fault
A deputy manager with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a CQC report highlighted failures at her care home. The tribunal found the investigation unreasonable but reduced her award by 20% for her own poor record-keeping.
Maintenance manager unfairly dismissed: ACAS uplift and Polkey reduction applied
A maintenance manager with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £8,455, applying a 20% ACAS uplift, a 25% Polkey reduction, and a 20% contributory fault reduction.