A comparison - Sacked for a sandwich; Sacked for a chocolate
You may have seen recently online the story about a cleaner at a London law firm who was fired for eating a leftover sandwich. Single mother Gabriela Rodriguez was dismissed just before Christmas 2023 after her employer, a private contractor Total Clean, received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned after meetings once the rooms were cleaned.
Sacked for a sandwich
Rodriguez had appealed the decision but Total Clean refused to reinstate her on the basis that “theft is theft” and because it did not want to upset Devonshires.
The law firm and the private contractor that employed Gabriela Rodriguez are being taken to an employment tribunal. The union representing the cleaner, claims her dismissal was discriminatory.
Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors.” “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.”
The argument is if Gabriela Rodriguez were not Latinx and with limited English abilities, Devonshires Solicitors would not have complained about her, and she would not have been fired.
Whilst this decision does appear to be harsh, a comparison can be made with the case and decision of Mr Jason Galloway v Rentokil Initial UK Limited - Case No: 1803158/2023
Sacked for a chocolate
Mr Jason Galloway worked for Rentokil as a technician in its pest control business. He has type 1 diabetes and was dismissed following an incident on 3 April 2023 at a customer’s premises when he took and ate a chocolate bar which did not belong to him.
After being suspended the Claimant visited the customer premises, taking with him two chocolate bars to replace that which he had taken, telling the customer’s manager of his diabetes. The customer then notified the Respondent and offered apologies, effectively withdrawing the complaint.
Following an investigation then a disciplinary meeting, it was held, ”One of our policies is that we do not tolerate theft. It is a gross misconduct offence, irrespective of previous warnings, this is serious enough to lead to dismissal. You had the opportunity but did not rectify this immediately after the incident occurring and you did not prepare correctly to avoid it occurring. You have admitted to theft and your actions have brought the company into disrepute. Throughout this hearing you have shown no remorse for your actions.”
At a Tribunal hearing, on 29th January 2024 Employment Judge Jennifer Wade stated that the “The Tribunal’s assessment is of whether the dismissal of the Claimant was appropriate and necessary, as a means of achieving the respondent’s aims, bearing in mind the very substantial impact upon him. The Tribunal took into account, in its assessment of whether dismissal was appropriate, the whole disciplinary process, including the appeal, which was reasonable and fair. We were satisfied that the Claimant had two opportunities to reassure the Respondent about the future, and he did not do so.” The Claimant’s disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.
Overview
Whilst at first glance the idea of being dismissed for a sandwich or a chocolate does appear harsh, each case has to be determined on their own facts. Jermey Vine also posted this online questioning whether it was fair for a cleaner to eat a leftover sandwich from a company meeting room worth about £1.50.
However, the decision in Galloway v Rentokil makes it clear that the value of the item is not relevant. The potential impact on a company’s reputation and the acts of employee after the incident and throughout meetings will determine the level of sanction to be implemented which can include a dismissal because ultimately ‘theft is theft’.
It will therefore be interesting to see how Gabriela Rodriguez’s claim proceeds and if it actually reaches a final hearing as the majority to claims are often settled by employers.
