Over the last week, news outlets have reported extensively on the long‑serving Morrisons store manager (Sean Egan) in Aldridge, West Midlands, who was dismissed after he intervened in an incident involving a shoplifter.
Andrew Macaulay-Ferguson, an employment solicitor at Hethertons in Yorkshire, has said the case raises wider questions about workplace policy, staff safety and whether the dismissal was a proportionate response.
“At this stage, we have only heard the former manager’s account, so it would be wrong to draw firm conclusions on the merits of any individual case,” said Andrew.
“On the face of it, this could potentially be considered a fair dismissal, but there is a great deal we simply do not know. We do not know the full wording of the policy, how clearly it was communicated, whether there had been previous issues or what his disciplinary record looked like.”
Andrew explained that, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, misconduct is one of the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal.
“To ensure that misconduct is dealt with properly, the employer must have a framework in place. Employers will usually establish workplace disciplinary rules which identify conduct that is unacceptable. The rules will then categorise the conduct by seriousness, ranging from misconduct to gross misconduct and then set out how they will address and sanction workplace misconduct.”
In cases involving physical intervention, employers may argue that a clear workplace policy has been breached.
He said: “If the employer is relying on a breach of policy, they would likely say this falls under misconduct, and potentially gross misconduct depending on the circumstances.
“That said, the question is whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances and whether dismissal fell within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer.”
Turning to the reported ‘deter and not detain’ policy, Andrew said the weight it carries would depend heavily on how it was written and enforced.
“If an employer has a policy around not getting physically involved, then the starting point will always be whether that policy was clear, whether staff understood it, whether it was consistently applied and whether the company provides adequate training to back the policy up.
“If staff are regularly trained on what to do in these situations, if they are given practical scenarios and clear steps to follow, then an employer is naturally in a stronger position when seeking to enforce it.
“The wider question is what staff are actually expected to do in a worst-case situation. If someone becomes aggressive, reaches into a bag and staff believe there may be a weapon involved, what is the alternative response they are trained to take?
“The purpose of these policies is usually to stop staff putting themselves in harm’s way. Even if someone is acting with good intentions, stepping outside that can still be treated as misconduct.
Andrew shared that he believes that long service should also form part of any fair decision-making process.
“In this case, we have no evidence to suggest that the former manager’s long-term service was excluded from the decision-making process.
“However, it is my view that an employee who has devoted the majority of their career to one organisation should have that commitment given substantial weight, particularly in circumstances of this nature and in the absence of any previous disciplinary concerns.
“Still, considerable length of service should not be assumed to mitigate the seriousness of any misconduct – rather it should be used to help assess the facts of the situation as a whole.”
Andrew said the former manager’s claim that he feared the individual may be reaching for a weapon adds important context, even if it does not automatically excuse the conduct.
“It helps explain why he acted in the way he did. That does not necessarily justify physical intervention, especially where there is a clear policy against it, but it is relevant context and it is something any reasonable employer should take into account.
“There is a difference between someone acting recklessly and someone acting on instinct in what they believe to be an emergency. If, as has been reported, no security staff were present at the time, that may also form part of the wider picture when considering why an employee felt they needed to step in.”
Andrew also said any fair dismissal would depend as much on process as on the underlying incident itself.
He said: “Even if there were grounds to discipline, the employer would still need to show that they followed a fair process.
“That would usually mean an investigation meeting, a disciplinary hearing, a genuine opportunity for the employee to explain what happened and a right of appeal.
“The employer must also be able to show that dismissal, rather than a lesser sanction such as a final written warning, was a proportionate response.
“When considering fairness of a dismissal, this is effectively split into two sections. First, procedural fairness – was a fair procedure followed that led to dismissal? And second, substantive fairness – was it reasonable and practical for the employer to treat conduct as a sufficient reason to dismiss?”
Morrisons has said it is confident the correct process was followed and that the matter was thoroughly investigated, while also stating that the reporting seen so far does not reflect the full facts of the situation.
Looking at the wider picture, Andrew said the case touches on a broader issue facing the retail sector.
He said: “Retailers quite rightly want staff to avoid putting themselves in harm’s way, and policies around theft and violence are often built around that.
“The challenge is what staff are expected to do when simply standing back does not feel like a realistic or safe option.
“There needs to be clear guidance and proper training around what steps employees can take in those moments, because telling people not to take risks only goes so far if they are faced with what they believe is an immediate threat.”
Sean Egan’s case has also struck a chord with the local community in Aldridge, with residents and customers raising money to help cover the former manager’s costs in bringing his tribunal claim.
It is unlikely this will be the last chapter in a case that has already ignited so much public discussion.
