Bill is accused by his superviser of stealing a crate from the company. There’s some CCTV evidence to support that; someone looking like Bill is seen on the CCTV recording, walking out of the warehouse with a crate of wine; and later a witness says a person answering to Bill’s description is carrying a crate from the warehouse towards the company car park.
That was the scenario offered by Danie Adendorff, the host at the University of Loughborough gathering with the Association of Security Consultants (ASC) yesterday. Danie split the attenders into two; one group would prepare how to interview Bill – who would be played by Danie; and the other group would be readying their own questions, as Bill’s trade union representative. Professional Security was in the trade union group, led by Allan Hildage, the chairman of the ASC. The group soon came up with a list that spelt out how difficult it is to do a workplace investigation if you don’t have procedures and keep to them – and if you blunder into an investigation regardless, you could make yet more trouble for the business. What is the company policy on disposing of odd crates of wine? Because an importer might provide a box for tasting, which might then be sold off to staff. Does the CCTV identify Bill? And does the witness – so that both box-carriers are the same man? Is there an evidential chain linking Bill and the box from the warehouse door to his car? And if there is, is it Bill’s car? And has the crate been recovered? Have the police been informed, and if not, why not, if there is a crime? Is the site CCTV registered with the data protection authorities, and for what purpose – crime prevention, or health and safety? How do you know the box wasn’t empty, or; what was in the box? Has the company done an inventory check, to prove this box is missing? What’s the value of the loss – which as Allan Hildage pointed out, matters because without a value of theft you can’t have a criminal charge, only a civil case. He suggested that he would be hesitant to interview; this was ‘a sticky wicket’.
Readers with experience of stock loss from warehouses might well say that of course Bill’s been thieving (and maybe the superviser too?!). And while some retail loss people may say, as Allan Hildage admitted, that trade union reps are difficult to deal with, Allan said that in his experience they were approachable, because the union is representing its membership – whose bonus is at risk from stock theft by dishonest employees – besides the member accused. Allan also spoke of the need in such a case to speak with the HR or other directors about what they want from an investigation. Is their policy – as at some retailers, as one high street name at the event confirmed – to prosecute every case of theft, and thus to investigate according to the criminal law and dismiss the worker for breach of trust and pass the case to the police. Or, does the business simply want to establish a civil law proof – on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt – that the worker stole, and then get him out of the door? The disadvantage there is that the dishonest worker can apply to join another retailer and do the same theft elsewhere – and workers dismissed from other retailers can join your business likewise?!
On returning to the seminar room, the management side did not get far before Allan Hildage on the trade union side was asking – is Bill being investigated before he’s been told? Is that company policy (agreed with the union?). And if someone is suspended during an investigation, is that with or without pay? Would the company try to establish it was Bill that the witness saw, by doing an identity parade? You haven’t got the right, said Allan. Danie, playing Bill, suggested that Bill had made an innocent mistake. Or, indeed perhaps Bill was doing systematic thefts for years and had been spotted this time. Even if the company did not have enough evidence this time, it helped to give reason to apply ‘technical resources’ (to put Bill under surveillance – a separate topic). Danie went through the PEACE model of doing an interview, which stands for planning; engaging and explaining according to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, telling the interviewee for instance whether the investigation is according to civil or criminal law; account, clarify and challenge in questioning; closure; and evaluation. The last two ought not to be overlooked, because an interview ought not to end abruptly, and after each interview the interviewer should review how it went, and what might be the lessons. Danie recommended interviewing according to a written plan. PEACE, as Danie said, is to reduce the dangers (of the interview going wrong and leading to an employment law case, or simply not going very well and not getting to the bottom of Bill’s guilt or indeed innocence). Beforehand, for instance, considering Bill’s age, religious beliefs, physical and mental health (if he says he feels faint, is that a dodge or did he once have a heart attack?!), and domestic circumstances. One retail loss investigator commented that they might make a suspect relaxed by asking about his hobby. That would be a way to get the interviewee to participate – even to the point where after admitting stock theft, the interviewee might thank the interviewer for catching him. The interviewed thief might feel relieved, rather than angry, because his thieving as a way of life had got out of hand and he wanted it now to stop. That was a reminder that any interview is an intensely human experience.
(Pictured: A piece of sculpture on the Loughborough campus.)
