The owner of an independent homeware shop notices till discrepancies on Sundays — small amounts, but consistent. Only one member of staff works every Sunday. CCTV shows her ringing up sales, then voiding them after customers leave. The owner's instinct is to sack her on the spot, on Monday morning, in front of the team.
That instinct — completely human — is how a justified dismissal becomes an unfair one.
Even caught on camera, process still decides the case
Employment tribunals don't retry whether the employee did it. They ask whether the employer had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether a fair procedure was followed. CCTV gives you the reasonable grounds. It does not give you the procedure — and procedural failure can make even a theft dismissal unfair, with compensation adjusted up to 25% for ignoring the ACAS Code.
The five steps that protect a small employer
- Investigate first. Secure the till records and CCTV, note dates and amounts, check who else had till access. A short investigation meeting lets her respond to the pattern before any charge is framed.
- Put the allegation in writing. A letter setting out exactly what is alleged, the evidence to be relied on (copies enclosed), that dismissal is a possible outcome, and the right to be accompanied.
- Hold a proper hearing. Listen. Genuinely consider the explanation — till training gaps, refund practices, another person's error. Adjourn to decide rather than announcing on the spot.
- Decide with a clear head. If the explanation fails, dismissal for gross misconduct is open. The letter should say why the explanation was rejected and set out the right of appeal.
- Offer the appeal to someone fresh. Hard in a one-owner business — which is where an external appeal chair earns their fee.
Total elapsed time in a case like this: about two weeks. The cost of skipping it: an unfair dismissal claim runs to a five-figure award plus months of management time — even when the employee really did take the money.
The traps independent owners fall into
Dismissing in anger, in public. Framing the letter as "theft" then proving only "unexplained voids" — charge what the evidence shows. Investigating, charging, hearing and deciding all as one person without ever pausing between roles. And forgetting the appeal entirely.
None of these change what happened at the till. All of them change what happens at tribunal.
Where external HR fits
For a shop with four staff, this is the first dismissal the owner has ever run — and the stakes are personal. An independent practitioner can run the investigation, chair the hearing or the appeal, and draft every letter, for a fixed fee that is a fraction of one month's defence costs. The owner keeps the decision. The process keeps the owner safe.
Facing something similar?
The first consultation is free — whether you're an employer who needs an independent process, or an employee preparing for one.
Get in Touch