Security guard ‘sacked for chasing thief’

The case of a security guard sacked for tackling a thief outside his shop has prompted health and safety law experts to urge employers to improve information and training for staff.

Charles Oloro’s job as a security guard at HMV in Sutton, south London, was terminated after he chased and caught a shoplifter who left the store with 20 DVDs. 

Oloro was reportedly sacked because his employer said he had broken its health and safety policy by leaving the premises and confronting the thief, something the retailer’s guards are not allowed to do. In an interview with the Daily Mail, he justified his actions by saying that 20 DVDs was worth £200 to the shop and he had given chase because that was “too much to lose”.

HMV explained that the rules are intended to protect workers, and were brought in in 2007 after an employee in Norwich was stabbed to death after confronting a shoplifter.

An HMV spokesman said: “While I am not in a position to give specific details of why Oloro has been dismissed... not least because he still has a right of appeal, which we would not wish to prejudice, I can confirm he was asked to leave for an accumulation of reasons.”

Employment law specialist Bibby Consulting and Support warned firms that employ security personnel to educate workers about how they could breach health and safety laws by apprehending criminals.

Michael Slade, managing director of Bibby Consulting and Support, said: "Cases like this are not clear cut. That's why companies need to make sure they have clear policies in place, that their workers are fully aware of them – and reminded so on a regular basis.

"It might be expected that security guards should be able to chase thieves but if they are running at speed through a public place, there is a very real chance that they could collide with someone and cause them serious injury. Employers also need to consider that guards could be set upon by a thief's accomplices and sustain a serious injury themselves.”

He said that employees who then choose to operate outside these guidelines would be subject to lawful disciplinary action.

"This might lead to claims that a person was sacked for doing their job, but this argument would simply not hold up if the boundaries governing that job had been clearly communicated beforehand and then breached," Slade added.