| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Constructive dismissal - First applicant (TW") dismissed and second applicant ("LM") resigned after respondent alleged involved in unauthorised possession and distribution of company product - Private investigator engaged to investigate theft - TW claimed told by investigator respondent after big thieves not little ones, so admitted taking some meat - Investigator denied given undertaking - No immunity given to TW - Respondent took admission and information from two informants into consideration and dismissed TW - LM responded to allegation took shoulders by admitting took some lamb racks, to show informants incorrect - Suspended but resigned before re-interviewed - Applicants submitted admissions obtained under false pretences or entrapment - Neither applicant entrapped - Not foreseeable LM would resign before respondent had decided to rely on admission - No constructive dismissal -TW's admission took meat for personal use fell short of meeting allegation relied upon by respondent - Admission did necessarily mean TW involved in larger issue of organised theft - Respondent relied on personal possession of meat without investigating it separately as fair and reasonable employer would - Without admissions, investigation into applicants wholly inadequate - Respondent could not justify dismissal on basis of untested information from unnamed informants provided by investigator - TW's dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Contributory conduct 100 percent - Reinstatement not appropriate" |