You may be fortunate and have never had to address a problem of an employee stealing from your store. Be in business long enough and chances are you will have to confront the issue one day. As a small or medium-sized retail owner or manager you probably won’t have the benefit of a Loss Prevention Department to investigate suspected dishonest employees. That means it will be up to you or a company such as Loss prevention Systems Inc. which specializes in theft and shortage reduction to identify and catch the thief or thieves. Once you catch the employee who has chosen to steal from your business, be it cash or merchandise, what will you do with him or her?
It seems like it should be an easy question to answer for someone like myself who has spent many years in the Loss Prevention field catching criminals like this. The reality is it is not such a cut and dry question for many people. There are pros and cons as to whether a dishonest employee should be prosecuted when caught. This article is meant to give you the perspective from both sides so that you will be prepared to make an informed decision should the situation ever arise for you.
The pro’s for prosecuting a dishonest employee who has been caught stealing:
- A clear message is sent to the employee and anyone working in your store that dishonest activity will not be tolerated.
- It can serve as a deterrent to other employees who may otherwise consider stealing from your store.
- An employee who is prosecuted and found to be guilty will have a criminal record. If this person attempts to work for any company that conducts pre-employment background checks it is likely their record will be found. It prevents the person from perpetrating crimes against other retailers.
- A court can order restitution to be paid back to the store. This is not just the amount that was stolen but often includes additional money for the time and effort required of the victim to resolve the issue.
As you can see the list is not extremely long but it does serve practical purposes. But what about the other side of this dilemma?
There is a case that can be made for not terminating an employee who has stolen from their employer. These cons may be something you have not previously considered:
- The most compelling reason not to prosecute a worker who has been caught stealing is that it does mean they will have a criminal record and this has a direct impact on their ability to gain employment. If you send someone to jail and they struggle to find a new job afterward you may not receive restitution even if the court ordered.
- The expense associated with prosecuting a case. Having an employee charged with theft means the store owner or manager will have to appear in court to testify against the former worker. There is also the chance that a lawyer for the defendant could request a continuance and then you have to return to court at a later date. Some employers would prefer not having to go through all of the steps required by the judicial system.
- You may be able to get a promissory note from the person more easily if they know they will not be prosecuted (remember though if a promissory note or restitution is not ordered through a court you may still not see any money).
- Extenuating circumstances. You may know of recent hardships this employee started going through or have compassion for them because they are a single parent trying to raise their child. In certain instances, the employee has also been a long-time friend or family member.
The decision of whether or not to prosecute an employee you have caught stealing is entirely up to you. There is no right or wrong choice since there are legitimate points of view on both sides of the argument.
A final thought on the subject. If you find you are wavering on the issue of prosecution talk to the prosecutor’s office for your area. You may find that there is a way to prosecute a case and the person can be offered a way to clear their record so they can still seek employment. In some instances, there is something called pre-trial intervention (or an equivalent). In these cases, a first-time offender pleads guilty and is offered classes and community service. Once complete their record is expunged so that a background check will not find a record. Failure to complete the requirements and the record stays. It is a good alternative to address both sides of the issue.
Sometime this year you will most likely be conducting an inventory. Some stores even conduct multiple inventories when they have high stock shortage results. While it does not necessarily translate to poor results, a lack of adequate preparation can have an impact on the final shortage numbers.
In a recent article published in LPM Insider, “Security Footage Sinks Employee Lawsuit Targeting Employee Bag Checks” by Garrett Seivold, Feb 7, 2018, they discussed a lawsuit brought against Nike by an employee who complained that he was being required to have package checks done when he was off the clock. His argument was that he was not being compensated for the time he is delayed. For the time being Nike has not been found to be excessive in its demands. They were able to demonstrate that employees were only being stopped for an average of 18 seconds for an inspection. This is hardly excessive by any measure. However, courts have a tendency to be inconsistent or a higher court may overturn a lower court decision. While one court may uphold the decision in favor of Nike there is no guarantee this will be true should a similar lawsuit be brought against other retailers. 
Many small and big chain businesses across the country are fed up with the amount they lose due to shoplifting and employee theft.
Because like alcohol abuse, both legal and illegal drug use, affects your bottom line. This issue 
I recently read an article entitled “How to spot a liar in your inbox” by Vanessa Van Edwards. The article discussed the nuances of how to tell if someone is lying to you in an email. The writer made some interesting observations on the lack of personal pronouns in the body of an email, inconsistency in tense usage and vague language. It dawned on me that often this is the same thing supervisors handle on a regular basis with employees. Think back to a phone call you have taken from an employee calling out of work. Often the conversation goes something like this, “I don’t feel well, I think I am going to have to call out today.” The employee is using language that does not make sense. They “think” they have to call out. Either they do or they don’t have to call out, the decision is theirs to make. Saying “I think” sounds more like asking permission to call out than making a decision of their own. Avoiding responsibility is one way an employee may try to lie without feeling guilty about it.
As managers and supervisors, we are all guilty at some point of assuming our employees will know what we are wanting from them when we make a request or assign a project. It may be something as simple as asking someone to empty a trash canister or as complicated as resetting a plan-o-gram. In our minds, the requested task may only require common sense but to the employee, it may be something totally different. Take the trash can example, you may ask an employee to empty it and assumed they would empty it into a compactor and place a new trash can liner inside. The employee may only hear that you want them to take the bag out and place the trash beside the compactor. They don’t hear you tell them to put a new liner inside the canister when they are done because you never said it. It seems like it should only be common sense but it isn’t necessarily the case. The same problem exists for every aspect of a job. Sometimes those of us in management positions make unfair assumptions and then get angry when our team members don’t do what we expected them to do.
I actually like and believe in all three of these things. When it comes to drugs they have to be the legal kind. All of us have seen the destruction that illegally used drugs cause. In a business environment, illegal drug use by an employee not only has an impact on their work performance but creates serious customer and legal issues for employers. An employee that is under the influence of any substance that influences their ability to do their job correctly or safely, will cause customers to question who they are doing business with.
Hopefully, your store is one of those places where employees look forward to coming to work. You know what I’m talking about it’s that environment where everyone is happy to be there. Employees know they are there to get a job done and take pride in the service they offer to the customers. It’s the type of job where people may have an off day but their co-workers are supportive and help pick them up. It happens to all of us. These jobs have a manager who interacts with the employees and takes a real interest in each of them. The boss may take time to say hello and greet everyone. They know their employees by name and may even know their families. Unfortunately, not every workplace has such a camaraderie amongst the team members. There is any number of reasons this can happen but a major contributor to an unhappy workplace can be the hiring of an employee with a poor attitude.
C