Employee fired for catching thief?

Question

A 24-year-old Home Depot employee in Murfreesboro, Tenn.,
is unemployed this week after catching a man who took cash from an on-site soda machine. Former department manager Dustin Chester said that he simply acted on instinct when he saw the alleged thief, but later found out that his employer's policy was to simply allow such offenders to escape, The Nashville Tennessean reported Wednesday. "The district manager told me that we are supposed to let thieves walk away; it blew my mind," the former employee-of-the-year said. "He had a crowbar, and what if he had come inside and gone after customers or the employees working at the registers?" Chester said of Monday's suspect. "I'd rather have him coming at me than going after any of the customers." A Home Depot spokesman said that the decision to fire Chester and his general manager was simply based on company policy, which is oriented toward ensuring safety on-site.
---------
Was Home Depot right?

Answer 1

Absolutely.

Home Depot is among many businesses that can handle the loss of cash a lot more easily than the legal and moral burden of an employee who is injured, possibly unable to work ever again, or even killed in his attempts to apprehend a thief.

That injured or killed employee could cost Home Depot millions. The thief probably got hundreds.

It's getting to be standard policy in many, many places to observe thieves as closely as possible, but never to give chase, especially if the thief shows a weapon or says or implies he has one.

Employee training often includes what to do when the store's being robbed, and run-'em-down is not among the instructions. It's specifically what the employee is *not* supposed to do.

Answer 2

Yes.

The thief got chump change is all. The employee risked major injury - the thief had a crowbar, and anyone could do a lot of damage with one in a very short time. Basically, the employee put Home Depot in the position where they could have had to pay a lot of money for the employee's injuries had the thief attacked him.

Now, if Home Depot didn't tell the employee about this policy, he might have a claim to get his job back. But they seem to be a well run company, and he was a dept. manager, so I'd guess that he should have at least had a manager's handbook listing this policy.

Answer 3

O_O Now that blew my mind. in a sense, if the employee attacked the thief and the thief is holding more than just a crowbar, like a gun, it's not just the employee who's gonna get hurt. But at the least the employee shouldn't be fired, and that policy is downright weird.

Answer 4

This is one reason why Home Depot is not what it used to be. Common sense is gone. Home Depot fired or laid off their knowledgeable "experts" in order to save money yet have no problems shelling out 100's of millions of shareholder money to a retired old fart who drove the quality of the chain down along with the stock price. Performance certainly wasn't a measure of reward for this CEO.

If I need plumbing, paint, or gardening, or electrical advice I end up figuring it out myself.

Loew's is a better choice. Maybe this employee should file a complaint and head over to Loew's to work there.

Answer 5

Nope. Perhaps legally, as if they have the policy, they have the right.
However, from the moral point of view, this is plain wrong. Not only did the thief get away with crime, but also the person whom wanted to protect company property and customers' health was punished. Taking an active stand against crime should be encouraged!

Answer 6

Home Depot was wrong.

If the thief went after a customer, it is not Home Depot's or the employee's fault, it is the fault of the thief.

Answer 7

Wouldn't it have been wiser to educate employees, on being hired, of company policy? If he was not educated on this policy, shouldn't he have been councilled rather than sacked?

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
Albert Einstein

Answer 8

Not right at all. It just goes to show don't get involved. You should sue them for wrongful termination.