A shameless Lidl store boss sacked for stealing £16,000 from the till took his bosses to court for unfair dismissal after claiming he was merely ''exposing'' how easy it was to take the money. Thadsoruban Theivendram, who is in his 30s, was fired after police raided his home and found the missing money in various Lidl marked cash bags in his bedroom.
But the father of two denied wrongdoing claiming he only took the money on ten different occasions to reveal 'loopholes'' in security and claimed senior colleagues were stealing from the firm. He later sued for unfair dismissal and racial discrimination but his claims were rejected as 'unrealistic' by a judge.
A Watford employment tribunal was told Mr Theivendram from Hayes, Middlesex had joined the budget supermarket giant in October 2014 and became a deputy store manager at its Uxbridge branch in West London. But an investigation began in August 2020, when he was summoned to a meeting with his store manager and another boss and asked about cashing-up and money going missing.
He initially denied any wrongdoing but later admitted taking money from the till and was suspended. Police raided his home and recovered cash bags containing more than £16,000 which had been taken from the store by Mr Theivendram on ten separate occasions.
The following September 2020, he attended a disciplinary hearing but claimed he had taken all this money to ''show that it could be done'' or ''expose vulnerabilities'' in Lidl's systems and the ''scope for theft.'' He was fired for gross misconduct but challenged the decision.
During the appeal hearing he admitted taking cash from the Uxbridge store but claimed the reason was to prove to Lidl the ''failure of the systems.'' He claimed the fact he did not do a runner showed ''he was not a thief'' and said he had spoken to nobody else in Lidl prior to taking the cash from the building.
Sri Lankan born Mr Theivendram subsequently contacted the conciliation service ACAS and blamed his situation on ''poor mental health' plus ''unfamiliarity with Employment Tribunal rules and lack of finance.'' In dismissing his claims Judge David Maxwell said: ''I do not find the Claimant had any mental illness during the period of time between his dismissal and the commencement of these proceedings.
''This was undoubtedly a very stressful time for him, as not only did he lose his job but also he was facing criminal proceedings. That is not, however, the same thing as being ill. The Claimant is an intelligent man, who describes himself as an IT expert.
"Indeed, during the hearing and without saying what he was going to do, he took over control of the hearing to show a document which included the proposition that by doing as he did, he had exposed wrongdoing and was, therefore, a whistleblower. After the rejection of his appeal against dismissal, he began to look online at how he might bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal.
"This led him to contact ACAS and commence conciliation for the purpose of bringing a Tribunal claim. He had been employed by the Respondent for circa six years and rose to be deputy store manager. The Claimant was able to explain himself satisfactorily during this hearing and had a tendency to speak at very great length.
''On the papers, the Claimant’s claim would appear, most naturally, to be a claim of direct race discrimination with respect to dismissal. In his argument at this hearing, the Claimant said, for the first time, he was also relying on indirect discrimination and victimisation.
''In terms of indirect discrimination, the Claimant said the reason why Lidl dealt with matters as it did was because he was a junior manager and the Respondent wished to protect more senior managers. Although not articulated very clearly, the Claimant’s argument appeared to be that his store manager had stolen money from the Respondent, he was seeking to expose this and yet his thanks for so doing was dismissal.
''The Claimant went so far as to say he was “framed'' to protect people at a higher level. There was, however, no evidence at all of his store manager having stolen anything. Whilst the Claimant says he engaged in this activity to expose the weakness of the system and theft by other people, the only person who was in fact exposed as having taken money was the Claimant.
''The police found bags of cash, exceeding £16,000, in the Claimant’s home and not that of the store manager. There is no evidence to support the existence of the alleged protection of more senior managers. The case for the Claimant’s dismissal being non-discriminatory is overwhelming. There is a complete lack of realism in the way he brings his complaints about this matter.
''The Claimant took cash from the Respondent, on 10 occasions, over 2 months, totalling in excess of £16,000. During the first investigation he denied any knowledge of this whatsoever. Only during a second interview, belatedly, did the Claimant advance his explanation about exposing loopholes.
''That the Respondent found him guilty of theft in such circumstances is entirely unremarkable, indeed it would have been very surprising if they had come to any other conclusion. Even if he had no dishonest intention, he taken a substantial sum of money from the Respondent, on ten occasions, without any permission to do so and in breach of company rules, falsifying and destroying financial records as he went.
''That the Claimant, subjectively, believes he was justified in doing all of this, takes him nowhere. It is difficult to see how such a misconceived venture could end otherwise than in dismissal. The Claimant gives every impression of having a strong personal conviction that he is honest and was acting with a good intention, when he took £16,000 from the Respondent, on 10 different occasions, which involved him falsifying and destroying financial records each time, as well as taking the money off the premises and hiding it in his bedroom.
''That others were not so convinced does not remotely suggest discrimination. In light of the Claimant’s admissions and bags of cash found by the police in his bedroom, coupled with an astonishing explanation advanced for why this was all done for the Respondent’s benefit, no sensible assertion can be made to the effect the Respondent was lacking in reasonable grounds or its investigation fell short.
''The present case is so clear cut and utterly devoid of merit that I can properly form a view about this on the material before me today. The Claimant’s view about his own conduct and the Respondent’s reaction to it is wholly unrealistic.''
