A widely reported story this week has put a spotlight on a difficult but familiar tension for employers: what happens when an employee breaches policy in an attempt to do what they believe is the ‘right thing’?

According to The Guardian, a Waitrose employee with 17 years’ service was dismissed after intervening in a shoplifting incident involving Easter eggs. The employee had reportedly been instructed not to confront shoplifters but did so anyway, leading to a brief physical altercation and subsequent disciplinary action.

For HR professionals, the case raises three key areas worth unpacking: reasonable management instructions, health and safety obligations, and the fairness of dismissal decisions.

  1. Reasonable management instructions

Most retailers operate strict ‘no intervention’ policies when it comes to shoplifting. These are typically framed as lawful and reasonable management instructions, designed to minimise risk.

The reports of this case indicate that the employer had clearly communicated such a policy. The employee himself acknowledged he had previously been told not to approach shoplifters.

From an HR perspective, this matters. A dismissal for misconduct is more likely to be fair where:

  • The rule is clear and well communicated
  • The employee understands the consequences of breach
  • The policy is consistently enforced

However, this case also illustrates a common grey area: employees acting outside policy due to frustration, moral instinct, or perceived organisational inaction. Long service can amplify this, creating a sense of ownership or duty that conflicts with formal rules.

  1. Health and safety: the employer’s overriding duty

The employer’s rationale appears rooted in health and safety. Waitrose reportedly emphasised that confronting shoplifters presents a “serious danger to life” and that no product is worth that risk.

This is a critical point. Employers have a statutory duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of employees. In high-risk retail environments -where incidents of violence linked to theft are rising – prohibiting staff from intervening is not only reasonable but arguably necessary.

For HR teams, this reinforces the importance of:

  • Clear risk assessments
  • Robust, regularly communicated policies
  • Training that explains the why, not just the what

If employees understand that such rules exist to protect them and not just the business, they may be less likely to disregard them.

  1. Was dismissal within the range of reasonable responses?

The most challenging question – particularly with only headline facts – is whether dismissal was a reasonable response.

Sainsbury’s v Hitt sets out the principle that a dismissal for misconduct must fall within the ‘band of reasonable responses’ which a reasonable employer might have to an allegation. It does not matter that another employer might not have dismissed the employee in this case –it is sufficient that dismissal was one of a range of reasonable sanctions which might have been imposed.

As if to illustrate this, whilst Waitrose are sticking by their dismissal decision on the basis of the importance of following policy for the ‘safety and security’ of their workers, others are calling for the employee to be given his job back. In a letter to Waitrose shared on X, the Shadow home secretary Chris Philp called for the employee to be re-instated and given a bonus for his “bravery and initiative”.

On the one hand, there appears to have been:

  • a clear breach of a safety-critical rule;
  • potential escalation into physical confrontation; and
  • an additional act – throwing an object. (It was reported that the employee threw a bit of smashed chocolate towards a trolley in frustration following the incident.)

On the other hand, mitigating factors may include:

  • 17 years’ unblemished service;
  • evidence of remorse; and
  • workplace context (reported frequent theft and reduced security presence).

Without full facts, it is impossible to conclude – but it is certainly arguable either way.

Reflections for HR

This case is a reminder that policies alone are not enough. Culture, communication and context matter just as much.

If employees feel unsupported in dealing with ongoing issues like shoplifting, they may take matters into their own hands – despite clear rules. The result is often a people management dilemma where there are no easy answers.

For HR leaders, the takeaway is clear: ensure that safety policies are not only enforced, but also understood, supported, and aligned with the lived reality of frontline staff.