Summary: Earlier this year, Waitrose and Morrisons demised employees for intervening in shoplifting incidents. While both companies stood by their decisions, they took a significant reputational hit for it. The error wasn’t their policies, it was the apparent lack of context and judgement.
Earlier this year, Waitrose and Morrisons sparked controversy following their separate decisions to dismiss longstanding workers, based on similar grounds – employees intervening in shoplifting incidents.
The events ignited widespread public backlash, media scrutiny and even job offers from rival supermarkets. Despite this, both companies defended their decisions, citing their responsibility to protect staff and customers.
In an era where the court of public opinion can judge rapidly and harshly, striking the right balance between enforcing policy and protecting reputation is more important than ever.
Businesses and HR teams should have a sound understanding of their legal obligations when establishing policies around shoplifting, or other in-store confrontations.
A nuanced approach
Under the Health and Safety Act 1974, employers have a duty of care to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees. This includes taking steps to prevent harm before it occurs.
In retail environments especially, confrontations can quickly escalate into aggression. This puts staff at risk and is why many retailers enforce strict ‘do not intervene’ policies. These prohibit any form of engagement.
Ultimately, this is intended to protect staff from harm and, in turn, employers from liability. If an employee was injured during an altercation, for example, companies could face legal action for failing to prevent foreseeable risks.
While it’s important for companies and HR professionals to remain aware of this risk of liability, many incidents will require a more nuanced approach.
Businesses may be technically entitled to enforce ‘do not intervene’ policies in response to shoplifting or other altercations. However it’s equally essential to assess the context and apply flexibility in the appropriate situations, particularly when pursuing disciplinary action.
What are the options?
When internal policies are breached, businesses are entitled to pursue disciplinary action, so long as they follow a fair process.
Dismissal, however, is not the only option. HR professionals can explore alternative sanctions. For example, issuing formal warnings, or requiring re-training on internal procedures, depending on the severity of the breach.
It’s also important for HR teams to consider any factors that might warrant flexibility. For example, if the employee was long-serving at the company, had a previously clean disciplinary record or if there were any threats or aggression that they were faced with during the incident that resulted in defensive action.
This nuance is the critical intersection where reputational risk meets legal compliance. While employers are entitled to dismiss a worker based on a policy breach, they should use the options available to them to determine the most fair and reasonable outcome.
When alternative options are genuinely explored, and mitigating factors considered, businesses will be in a much better position in terms of public perception.
Nuance is the critical intersection where reputational risk meets legal complianc
The importance of perception
In stark contrast, Waitrose and Morrisons have focused primarily on enforcing internal policies. From their initial decisions to dismiss the workers, through to their statements in response to public scrutiny.
Naturally, however, this is not an effective form of protecting company reputation. Dismissing frontline workers, especially when they have claimed to be defending themselves, their workplace or their colleagues, can appear harsh. Even where the employer is legally justified to do so.
For consumer-facing businesses especially, this perception can be crucial. Large organisations are naturally cautious about shoplifting incidents due to the risk of liability. But they also need to recognise the risk of significant, long-term brand damage that could result from dismissing loyal workers without exploring alternative options.
Even when actions are legally justified, the absence of empathy can severely harm public perception. A more balanced response could have acknowledged the instinct to protect colleagues or customers, whilst still reinforcing the company’s duty to adhere to health and safety regulations.
Once businesses have made an immediate decision to dismiss workers and frame it based on a policy breach, however, it becomes difficult to reverse this without appearing inconsistent.
No room for inconsistency
That’s why HR teams should ensure policies around shoplifting incidents or similar altercations are clear and properly communicated to staff from the outset.
This includes strengthening onboarding processes and implementing regular scenario-based training which provides clear scripts for staff in de-escalating shoplifting incidents, rules on engagement depending on the severity of the altercation, and how to escalate to senior management where required.
Crucially, policies should also distinguish between reckless intervention and instinctive or defensive reactions. Not every breach is the same. Treating them this way could open companies up to damaging reputational risk, like Waitrose and Morrisons.
Communicating internal policies clearly and consistently will determine their effectiveness, whether a company chooses to adopt a strict non-interference stance or otherwise.
It also helps to protect companies from liability, and having to pursue disciplinary action later down the line. When employees have a clear understanding of policies, they will be better prepared to handle unprecedented situations in line with internal procedures.
Even when actions are legally justified, the absence of empathy can severely harm public perception
Taking stock
The Waitrose and Morrisons incidents have offered an important lesson for businesses, leaders and HR teams about approaching similar situations with nuance.
Non-intervention policies for shoplifting incidents are legally sound. However businesses face a much deeper challenge in applying this in the right context. That means considering the mitigating circumstances, exploring alternative disciplinary routes, going back to the drawing board to review internal policies and protecting their reputation throughout.
Actionable insights
- Know your options before you’re in the room: Dismissal is not the only option. HR professionals can explore alternative sanctions such as issuing formal warnings or requiring re-training.
- Ensure your policy accounts for human instinct: Policies should distinguish between reckless intervention and instinctive or defensive reactions. Not every breach is the same.
- Train people for what actually happens: Implement regular scenario-based training.
If you found this article useful, read: How to: Effectively manage workplace investigations
