I agree with OT that a discussion with a local Employment Solicitor is the best advice we can give on here, there are too many variables to give a clear answer to the prospects of sucess of any claim against the Employer.
A theft of this magnitude would clearly qualify as "gross misconduct" so an instant dismissal would be justified, but (and this is crucial) it is not a Theft but a suspected theft at present, and (unless all five were acting in collusion) innocent employees have evidentially been dismissed unfairly.
I still think it's "strange" that the employer chose not to involve the police.
I too am surprised that the Police were not contacted and whatever the reasons were, they give rise to further doubts. I'd suggest getting a little more background information about the employer to hand to the Solicitor which will inform the decisions that must be made.
Whilst this appears to be a straightforward 'unfair dismissal', I can add some cautions:
- What is the legal satus of the Employer? an individual, a Company, a Chain of a Listed Company, a Local Authority, a Charity etc? And do they have any previous convictions or employment tribunal judgements against them? Or even County Court Judgements? (This might inform any calculation of the prospects of success of each course of possible action).
- Is the Employer someone who can and would pay a fine (or a rogue who would just dissapear or an aristocrat who acts as if they are above the law or a large public or private body who can afford to delay such matters for years on end)? (I have been up against all three and they can be tiresome, expensive, slow and ultimately unsatisfactory).
Perhaps the Employer had failed to meet some of the conditions attached to their Insurance (if any) which might explain the hesitation in contacting the Police, if so, they have already been penalised to the sum of £1500, so will not be cheerfully disposed to a concilliation involving further expense. Someone who incurs a loss like this, then realises that their Insurance is unhelpful, then has to recruit 5 new staff members will feel more aggreived and possibly more aggressive towards any concilliation than you might expect.
This is actually quite a common occurrence in the Licensed trade, where Contracts of Employment tend to be biased in Employers' favour, and preferring short term part-time posts. I have been involved in a few in that sector and in the Public Sector, and regret to tell you that Employers behaving in this manner fall into two categories (whatever their public profile): those who, from the outset, show willingness to commit to a resolution (whether voluntarily or in litigation), and those who are not (which includes rogues, public bodies and millionaires). I'd be surprised if your 'friends' can't tell already in which category their Employer belongs - that should inform their decision to pursue action and the level of costs it would be reasonable to incur.
I shouldn't post any more on here other than vague generalisations, but if you wished to discuss by PM I'd be happy to assist as far as I can.
Referring to other contributors:
In civil law (covers employment) there only has to be reasonable belief someone did it. If there is no evidence that clears any of the five he can reasonably believe they are all responsible.
I cannot agree that this line of reasoning is adequate to secure an uncontestable dismissal.
If the employer's poor system has given the situation where 4 of the employees have been put in this position then isn't he liable for any of the blame? Also he is still a suspect himself, having access to the safe.
The employer has indeed incurred the liability - the money is gone.
Your point about 'poor' systems is well made and will surely be used in any attempt at a resolution or in litigation. His 'poor' procedures render the Employer culpable, even if not guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Not relevant here. I have filing cabinets groaning full of examples to the contrary. As above, the licensed trade and agricultural industries appear to be the most active at present, followed by those without any contract (written or implied), and then, sadly, the Public Sector employers.
(Thank God!)
