Someone has told me an employee is stealing

14th October 2026

A supervisor catches you on the way out and tells you one of your staff has been taking stock. They are certain. They have seen it twice. They want to know what you are going to do.

What you are holding is one person’s account of something you did not see. The first decision is not about the person accused, and it is not whether to send anyone home. It is what you write down in the next hour, because in a fortnight you will not remember who told you, when, or in what words, and that is the first thing anyone will ask you for.

Write the report down before you do anything with it

Record the date and time, who told you, what they said in their own words as closely as you can manage, what they say they saw rather than what they concluded, and when it happened. Then ask how they knew. Acas asks for the same detail in a witness statement: the person’s name and position, when and where the events happened, what they saw, heard or know, and how they came to be aware of it.

An allegation of theft is also criminal offence data, even though nothing is proven and nobody has rung the police. The ICO says this covers allegations and suspicion, not only convictions, and that handling it needs a lawful basis, a condition from Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and records kept. So the note lives in one place, with your name on it, seen only by the people who have to see it. Not in a group chat.

The person who told you may be better protected than the person accused

A report that a colleague is committing a criminal offence can be a qualifying disclosure. Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 covers information which the worker reasonably believes tends to show that a criminal offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed, where they also reasonably believe it is in the public interest. Gov.uk gives fraud as an example and says a whistleblower should not be treated unfairly or lose their job.

Two things follow. The reporter does not have to be right, only to hold a reasonable belief. And if their shifts change, or they are quietly frozen out after telling you, you have a second problem that has nothing to do with the missing stock.

So do not cross examine them about their motives in that first conversation. Take what they said, ask what they saw, and leave motive for when you weigh the evidence, which is a later step.

Suspension is not the safe option, even though it feels like it

When stock is going missing, sending the person home feels responsible. Acas does not treat it that way. Its guidance is to suspend only if there is no other option, and it says plainly that suspension “does not mean an employee has done anything wrong, and should not be used to discipline someone”.

Work through the alternatives Acas sets out first: changing shifts, moving the person to a different part of the business, working from home or another site, stopping part of the job, working away from customers, or stopping their use of a particular system or tool. For a theft allegation, taking away till access or the stockroom key usually achieves what suspension would, without announcing to the whole team that somebody is suspected.

If you do suspend, Acas advises putting it in writing, confirming that pay and benefits continue, agreeing how often you will be in touch, and reviewing whether it is still needed rather than letting it run.

You are the wrong person to investigate, and you may have to anyway

Acas says to find somebody not involved in the case, and that for serious matters a more senior person may be better. In a business of eleven people that advice runs out quickly. Where you cannot separate the roles, Acas says to make the process as impartial as you can.

That is not a fudge. Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 asks whether the employer acted reasonably, and says expressly that the question is judged having regard to the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking. Nobody expects a shop with nine staff to produce what a bank would. You are expected to do the obvious things, and to note why where you could not.

So hand the gathering of evidence to anybody you can, a fellow director, a bookkeeper, a manager from another site, and keep the decision for yourself. If there is nobody, say so in the file at the time.

Check the evidence you already have before you create any

Till records, stock counts, delivery notes, door entry logs and footage from cameras you already run were all collected for another purpose, and looking at them is the first step. Installing something new to catch one named person is a different matter. The ICO’s position is that an employer is “unlikely to be able to justify covert monitoring in usual circumstances”. That is not somewhere to go without advice.

Whatever you rely on, the employee gets to see it. Paragraph 9 of the Acas Code of Practice says that where there is a case to answer the employee should be told in writing, with enough information about the alleged misconduct to prepare an answer, and that copies of written evidence, which may include witness statements, would normally go with it. That includes the statement from whoever reported it. Acas says investigators should avoid anonymous witness statements where possible, so that the person can fairly question the evidence against them, and keep anonymity for exceptional cases such as a genuine fear of revenge. So do not promise anonymity in the corridor.

One point that surprises most employers: there is no statutory right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting. Paragraph 7 of the Code says so, and adds that your own procedure may allow it. Allowing a companion anyway rarely costs anything.

Do not wait for the police, and do not take the money out of their wages

Nothing in Acas guidance or in statute requires you to pause your own process while the police decide what to do. The Acas Code comes at it from the other direction. Paragraph 31 says a criminal charge or conviction is “not normally in itself reason for disciplinary action”, and that what matters is how it bears on the person’s suitability for the job and their working relationships. The criminal question and the employment question are separate, and yours is the employment one.

Taking the money back is the other instinct to resist. A deduction from wages is lawful only on specific grounds, such as where the contract allows it or the worker agreed in writing beforehand. In retail work there is a further cap: deductions on account of cash shortages or stock deficiencies cannot exceed a tenth of the gross wages payable on that pay day, under section 18 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Deducting first and investigating afterwards turns one dispute into two.

Keep the file, too. Tribunal time limits rose from three months to six on 1st October 2026, where the relevant date falls on or after that day, according to Acas’s tracker of the Employment Rights Act 2025, so a decision you take this month can reach you in April. And from 1st January 2027 the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal drops from two years to six months, bringing most of your newer staff inside it. That is covered in unfair dismissal at six months.

What to do today

Write the report down, in detail, with the date on it. Decide whether removing access does the job suspension would, and take the smaller step if it does. Look at the records you already hold. Find anyone other than you to gather the evidence, and note it if there is nobody. If it comes to a disciplinary meeting, tell the employee in writing what the allegation is and send the evidence with the letter, not across the table.

Then listen properly, because the hard part comes next, when you have heard the explanation and do not believe it. We have written about what to do when you think someone is lying in a disciplinary hearing.

Tarn.hr provides HR guidance based on UK employment law and Acas codes of practice. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Employment law is complex and turns on the facts of each case. For any situation involving significant legal risk, potential tribunal claims, or matters of particular sensitivity, you should seek advice from a qualified employment solicitor. Tarn.hr is not responsible for any decisions made on the basis of its guidance.