Some legal and socio-psychological aspects of working with hypermarket personnel who committed theft.

Some legal and socio-psychological aspects of working with hypermarket personnel who committed theft. Some legal and socio-psychological aspects of working with hypermarket personnel who committed theft.

One of the factors directly influencing the losses of retail enterprises is theft committed by company employees. Viktor Nikolaevich Belov, former head of one of the security departments of the largest regional chain of retail hypermarkets in the Republic of Tatarstan, talks about some key points concerning the prevention of theft, as well as the legal aspects of this issue.

The relevance of the problem of preventing internal losses in the retail trade system is hardly controversial. The figures cited by numerous researchers regarding the percentage of all losses of retail enterprises and losses from their own personnel are approximate and are mostly probabilistic in nature. If we talk about losses caused by intentional actions of personnel (in fact, theft), then these facts are often latent. I am deeply convinced that, after all, the majority of losses in retail are losses from unintentional actions of personnel (errors, violations of financial discipline, correctness of food orders, storage conditions for perishable products and fruits and vegetables, correctness of inventories, contractual work of commercial divisions with suppliers, etc., etc.), and this is a subject for a separate serious discussion.

In this article, I would like to touch upon the topic of thefts committed by staff, or more precisely, some aspects of working with employees who have already committed theft.
Talking to heads of security departments of a number of hypermarkets, including large federal and foreign chains, I was surprised to learn that often, an employee who has committed a theft is simply fired. And they are fired at their own request. After some time, this employee successfully gets another job, and his former colleagues, seeing that in essence nothing terrible has happened to him, continue to steal.
I personally had to hear the phrase from an employee who committed a theft: «- I didn't steal anything, I just took what they didn't give me!» I assure you, this is the position of the overwhelming majority of employees! Everyone knows perfectly well that the deterrent that keeps a person from stealing is not his moral and ethical or religious beliefs, but the fear of punishment!

I believe that the activities of security personnel and the head of the hypermarket security service to prevent, suppress and identify employees of the trading enterprise committing thefts have a major educational, preventive and disciplinary effect on all employees of the Company. No less impact is the way in which the revealed facts will be communicated to all other employees, what negative consequences will entail the exposure of the embezzlers. Fear of possible and inevitable punishment is a huge deterrent for dishonest employees.

I can assume that not all of the provisions set out below will be unambiguously understood by everyone and will be accepted as a guide to action. Therefore, I would like to draw attention to the fact that these methods and tactics have been tested in practice and have proven their effectiveness. Each manager will decide for himself whether to apply them to his employees.

Prevention of theft committed by personnel

Before outlining the main points that should be taken into account by officials in cases of detection of thefts by personnel of trading enterprises, it should be borne in mind that no less important is the preventive work of officials of trading enterprises in this direction. In this regard, the following preventive measures can be identified that should be carried out at the Company's facilities in order to prevent thefts by personnel:

1. Conducting interviews with candidates applying for a job at the Company. Before conducting an interview, it is advisable to provide the maximum amount of information about the candidate. When hiring people, it is necessary to use as many means and methods as possible to check them to identify specific inclinations and hidden motivation. The main methods for checking a candidate include the following:

A thorough check of identity documents and the presence of permanent local registration. Particular attention should be paid to entries in the candidate's work record book. At the same time, not only the reasons for dismissal from previous jobs may indicate past employment. The very fact that a candidate of working age does not have a work record book may be grounds for a more thorough check.
Checking references from previous places of work is a must. The head of the hypermarket security service or another authorized person conducting such a check should be suspicious of candidates for vacancies who refuse to provide the address and phone numbers of the organization where they worked, the one who recommended them. The practice of exchanging information about employees dismissed for negative reasons between heads of security services, even from “competing” chains in the same region, has proven to be quite effective. In this case, the information works “proactively”. In my practice, there were cases when the manager meeting with the candidate already had information that he was actually dismissed from his last place of work for committing theft, and not “of his own free will”, as the entry in the work book showed.
It is necessary to find out or, at least, pay attention to the person’s addiction to bad habits: alcohol, drugs, gambling;
It is mandatory to check a person for a criminal record, especially for intentional mercenary crimes, as well as for committing administrative offenses — a striking characteristic moment that can play a decisive role in making a decision and hiring a candidate for a job in the Company.

2. It is necessary to practice so-called ethical and correct provocations for dishonest actions, with notification of personnel directly at the interview stage that they are standard control procedures.

3. Regular work to inform the personnel of the shopping center about the facts of thefts by personnel in other shopping centers of the chain. In this case, the information should be communicated in measured doses, with the focus of the personnel not on the methods of identifying such facts, but on the most negative consequences that the guilty employees will suffer. To carry out such work, a well-established system of information exchange between the retail structural divisions of the chain and the Central Office of the Company is necessary. Even more effective is the system of normative regulation of this process, so that the regulating local normative act prescribes the frequency, volume, list of officials to be informed and other issues of information exchange.

4. Regular and systematic control over the purchase of food, personal hygiene items, etc. by the hypermarket personnel during their work shift. I consider it mandatory for the Company to have a special regulatory act, a Standard or Instruction on access control and internal facility regime. Security officers must carry out this control not only upon the arrival of personnel at the workplace in the morning and upon leaving work, but also throughout the working day. For example, when employees go to the canteen. Checks should not be regular, but unexpected, spontaneous. Any identified cases of consumption of unpaid goods should be regarded as theft, with the use of all legal and psychological measures provided for by these recommendations.

5. Creating such a psychological climate in the shopping center team, on the basis of which an atmosphere of intolerance towards thieves in the team will be created, which, of course, should be fueled by a reasonable motivation system. Of course, it would be wrong to develop a system of «snitching» in the team, materially stimulating each fact of denunciation. This can lead to such an environment in the work team of the shopping center that will make the normal implementation of business processes impossible. In such a case, the losses from the disruption of the normal functioning of the trading process may exceed the compensation for losses from the development of a system of total denunciation.

6. It is necessary to create and maintain an effective system of inventory control at all stages of the movement of goods. Nothing pushes employees to steal more than the understanding of the inadequacy and shortcomings in the accounting of material assets. Again, standardization and regulation of all processes of inventory control without exception and an established system of control over compliance with all existing regulations are recommended.

7. Using secret sources of information. This refers to employees who are especially trusted by the store administration, who, being passionate about their work but fearing persecution from dishonest colleagues, are able to inform the management about such persons and their actions. It should be noted that such a method should be used with the utmost caution, and not developed, as noted above, a system of total denunciation. As practice has shown, the most effective in this direction are heads of security departments who previously worked in operational departments of law enforcement agencies.

8. Using various techniques aimed at ensuring that line personnel constantly feel a state of a certain «controllability». This is the implementation of events under the conventional names of «test purchases», «secret shopper» and the like.

There are a number of other, more specific, forms and methods of preventive work with personnel aimed at preventing theft by personnel, but the above-mentioned seem mandatory, since in the absence of work in this direction, the losses of a trading enterprise can increase many times over.

Bringing to legal responsibility

Considering the number of cases of theft by personnel of retail enterprises being identified, it seems that there is a need to regulate and standardize the procedure for the actions of the management of shopping centers and, first of all, the heads of the security service, in cases where such cases are identified.
I would venture to suggest that a clear and tough reaction to the discovery of facts of theft by personnel on the part of the administration of trading enterprises and the Company's management is justified. The issue concerning the termination of an employment contract at the initiative of the employer, in the event of theft by an employee at the place of work, is sufficiently regulated by the current Russian legislation. How the powers granted by law will be implemented, in terms of influencing the employee, by the representatives of the employer, depends on the competent actions of the relevant officials.

The most powerful influencing factor, which has the most negative consequences for the employee who committed theft and, accordingly, the most educational and preventive effect on other employees, is the dismissal of the embezzler on the grounds provided for in subparagraph «g» of paragraph 6 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with it, «An employee may be dismissed for committing theft (including petty theft) of someone else's property at the place of work, embezzlement, deliberate destruction or damage thereof, established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force or a resolution of the body authorized to apply administrative penalties.» Termination of an employment contract on this basis cannot be compared, in terms of the degree of moral impact, with any material costs, since it can leave a negative imprint on all future work activities of this citizen and, accordingly, on his material well-being. All employees must clearly understand this, and it must be explained to them, — this is precisely the task of the head of the security service and the employee of the personnel department (HR manager).

In the event of a theft by a shopping center employee, the primary task of the head of the security service is to assess the prospects of the revealed fact from the point of view of the possibility of bringing the detainee to legal responsibility. To do this, the head of the security service must certainly have at least minimal legal knowledge. When determining the prospects of a case for consideration by the bodies authorized to do so, the head of the security service must have an evidence base, namely:

eyewitnesses or witnesses to the theft;
relationship of witnesses with the detainee, i.e. the absence of the possibility, at any stage of the case, of refusing to testify;
the presence or absence of any evidence of the theft committed on electronic media, — photos, video footage, data from archives of video surveillance system records, cash transaction control systems, etc.
other material evidence that may have evidentiary value when considering the case by the body authorized to do so;
procedural legality and proper execution of the procedure for searching the detainee and seizing the stolen goods;
the confession of the detainee himself, and last of all, since the presumption of innocence has not been abolished.

For the commission of intentional theft, depending on the amount of damage caused, Russian legislation provides for two types of legal liability. This is criminal liability, provided for by Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and administrative liability, provided for by Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. It should be noted that in practice, when determining the amount of damage caused by theft, some conflicts may arise. In particular, we often had to deal with situations when even within the same region but in different cities, the courts in some cases focused on the retail prices of the stolen goods, and in others, on the purchase prices.

After a court verdict on criminal liability or on the basis of a court ruling on administrative liability, disciplinary liability may occur, which was mentioned above, in the form of termination of the employment contract with the employee who committed theft, on the grounds provided for in subparagraph «g» of paragraph 6 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The word «may» is emphasized for a reason. I would like to note that, despite the above preferences for dismissing an employee who committed theft «under the article», this is still the right of the employer, and not an obligation at all.
After the head of the security service has assessed the prospects of considering the revealed fact of theft by an employee of the Company in court, he takes all measures to hand over the embezzler to the police and draw up the necessary documents.

It should be remembered that the security staff of the shopping center, be it the administrators of the sales area, controllers or employees of a private security company, can act in this case as applicants, if they are granted the right to represent the interests of the Company by the relevant power of attorney, or as witnesses of the revealed fact. Any «documents» drawn up directly by the security staff or the head of the security service of the hypermarket on the fact of the revealed theft (Act, protocol, etc.) have legal significance. Although, perhaps, in some cases, for the purpose of a certain subsequent «psychological pressure» on the detainee, such documents should be drawn up, using them in the future not for bringing to legal responsibility, but for collecting a certain material compensation in favor of the Company.

In light of the issue under consideration, it is impossible not to pay attention to the following. It is paradoxical, but nevertheless true, that it is much easier to fire an employee who committed petty theft «under the article» than a criminal offense. I am sure that HR departments constantly face this problem. This is due to the timeframes for considering various categories of cases. Cases of administrative offenses are considered, as a rule, within 1-2 days. The investigation of a criminal case can last for months. In my practice, there was a case when the investigation of a multi-episode criminal case lasted more than 9 months. I consider this a typical case of «conflict of law» and believe that Russian legislators will have to solve this problem sooner or later.

The «stumbling block» is that Russian law prohibits not only dismissing an employee, but also suspending him from work, except by a court order. If in the case of petty theft a court order can be issued fairly quickly, then in the case of initiating a criminal case, a court order, as already noted, can take quite a long time. True, a court order to suspend an employee from work can also be issued on the basis of a petition from an investigator or a person conducting an inquiry, but this can only happen from the moment the person is brought to criminal responsibility (that is, from the moment the charges are brought or a ruling is issued on the protocol form of pre-trial preparation of materials), and this, as a rule, is also quite a long period.

What to do with the detained embezzler until the relevant ruling is made? It seems that the employer in this case does not have many legal options:

allow the employee to work until the court makes the relevant ruling. I dare to assume that this, to put it mildly, is not always an acceptable option for the employer;
to get the employee to write an application for administrative leave. The same option is not always acceptable due to the fact that the employee himself may refuse, knowing full well that he is unlikely to have to work in the company, and for the employer, occupying a staff position with a de facto «dead soul» is not profitable
terminate the employment contract with the employee for other legal reasons. In practice, this is either dismissal «at one's own request», or, which is most preferable for the employer, termination of the employment contract «by agreement of the parties». This, unfortunately, happens in the overwhelming majority of such situations

Collection of material damage

In some cases, when a fact of theft by a shopping center employee is revealed, for various reasons the evidence base for bringing the perpetrator to legal responsibility is insufficient. This does not mean that the employee who committed theft should remain unpunished. To do this, the head of the security service must use various levers of influence, but ensure that the punishment following the theft is adequate and sufficient.

The next most influential psychological factor, after dismissal for a negative article, is the material punishment of the guilty party. For the Company, it has a double effect. Firstly, it has an educational and psychological effect on both the offender and the other employees. Secondly, it compensates for the Company's direct material losses from various types of losses. Accordingly, the larger the amount that can be recovered from the guilty party, the more effective the fact of revealing the theft by a company employee.
It should be remembered that Russian legislation does not provide for any systems of fines for persons — employees of the organization, convicted of theft. That is, even if the guilt of the employee is proven and there is a legal act that has entered into legal force — a Sentence or a resolution, he can be brought to financial liability only on the basis of the provisions of civil procedural legislation. In order to recover compensation for any losses from the thief, the Company will have to go to court with a civil claim, which does not at all guarantee compensation, for example, for a shortage of any item of goods.

Here, certain procedures related to social and psychological work with the guilty employee by the head of the security service may come into force. After such work, the employee must be completely confident that he got off easy, as if «buying off» the organization. The guilty employee, from whom compensation for any losses of the shopping center was collected, should not even have the thought that his rights were infringed in any way. When carrying out work in this direction, the head of the security service must explain to the employee who committed the theft, the provisions of Art. 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which reconciliation of the parties is allowed if the damage caused is compensated, and the injured party has no claims (in this case, material). In order to document the fact of voluntary material compensation for the damage caused, a receipt should be taken from the employee who committed the theft stating that, in order to reconcile with the injured party, this employee himself offers to voluntarily compensate for the damage for the group of goods that he stole.

When working with a person who has committed theft, the head of the security service should use various psychological techniques. As mentioned above, this may be the preparation of some legally insignificant documents — Acts, protocols, etc. In this case, the legal illiteracy of the detainee should be used. Explain to him that in the event of refusal to pay the Company financial compensation, these documents will fall into the hands of law enforcement agencies, which will entail more negative consequences, etc. It is impossible to foresee all the techniques and possibilities that can be used in working with detained employees, since this is purely individual work based on the specific personal characteristics of the person who committed theft.

I would recommend the following key points that can be adhered to and used when working with employees who have committed theft:

To achieve from the Company's management a fundamentally intolerant attitude towards employees caught stealing;
To be as strict as possible in choosing punishment for Company employees who have committed theft, using all possibilities to bring offenders to criminal or administrative responsibility;
For each fact of theft identified, immediately conduct a mini-inventory for those items of goods that were stolen;
If a shortage is identified for these items, work to maximize compensation for this shortage at the expense of the detained thief;
Achieve immediate financial compensation for damages at the expense of the funds of the Company employee caught stealing, available in his salary account;
Show the guilty party that the Company is accommodating them, allowing them to resign of their own accord (by mutual agreement) after compensating for the material damage, and not for negative reasons;
When collecting material damage from the guilty party, avoid handling cash between the employee and the head of the security service or other official conducting the work. The most preferable option is when the guilty party pays for the shortfall by depositing cash into the cash register;
When informing all other personnel of the identified fact, in all cases present it as an emergency for the Company, which has resulted in maximum negative consequences for the guilty party;
In 100% of cases of detected theft, insist to the management of the shopping center on the dismissal of this employee. If other employees find out that employees caught stealing or using unpaid goods got off with paying for the goods and continued their work in the Company, the deterrent factor will weaken many times over and it will be very difficult to restore it.

I believe that the head of the security service department should remember that security officers, if their work is properly organized, should have minimal contact with sales personnel. A security guard is a supervisory person who does not participate in the sales process in any way. The less a security guard communicates with goods receivers, loaders, managers, salespeople (consultants), cashiers, the less likely is collusion — the most dangerous crime in terms of consequences in the retail sector.

April 15, 2011

About the author
Belov Viktor Nikolaevich, born in 1969, native of Yelabuga, Tatar ASSR, studied at the Kazan State University named after Ulyanov-Lenin in 1986-1988, served in the USSR Armed Forces in 1988-1990. From 1991 to 2002, he worked in various positions in the internal affairs agencies, — inquiry and preliminary investigation units, teacher of the legal cycle at the Yelabuga Secondary Specialized Police School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. Higher legal education. In 1998, he graduated from the Kazan branch of the Moscow Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.In recent years, he worked in the security service structure of the largest regional chain of retail hypermarkets in Tatarstan. As the head of the company's internal security department, he organized the activities of the security departments of 14 hypermarkets; developed company standards and instructions, technical specifications for the installation of security systems at existing and opening facilities, training programs, methodological and didactic manuals; monitored operational activities in terms of minimizing losses, provided legal support for projects related to security issues, etc. He actively participated in the development of contracts for the implementation of security activities by private security companies and carried out ongoing interaction with the management of private security companies on various issues.
Married. Permanently resides in Yelabuga, Republic of Tatarstan.

email: vik1969_10@mail.ru
tel. 8 (85557) 7-19-70
mob. 8-987-227-77-19