LemonJam
There are 2 perspectives here which have lead to a sad outcome- for the employee Walker Smith losing his job and bad publicity for Waitrose, that is limited in its ability to respond and present the full picture.
Waitrose is unable to disclose full details in relation to the incident as legally it must protect Smith's employment rights in respect of privacy and confidentiality laws. Waitrose must also legally comply with Health and Safety at Work act regulations and protect the health and safety of its employees in context of shop lifting risks, which applies in this case no doubt. As a result Waitrose has policies in place to protect all its employees with which employees must comply as part of their employment. Walker, by his own admission did not comply with his employment contract responsibilities as he did not follow policy and acted in the moment, out of frustration.
Guardian article extracts from the employee’s perspective: After spotting the thief, Walker “grabbed the bag” from the shoplifter, who snatched it back and, he said, there was a struggle for a few seconds before it snapped. The Lindt Gold Bunny Easter eggs, which retail for £13 each, fell to the floor and the shoplifter made a dash for the exit. Smith said one of the bunnies broke into pieces. He picked a piece and “threw it out of frustration” towards some shopping trolleys, not aiming it at the shoplifter, he said. He was told off by his manager and apologised but the matter was escalated. Smith said he was previously told not to approach shoplifters but the toll of seeing them get away with theft repeatedly spurred him into action. Smith said he regretted how he acted. “When I got home I was punching myself and thinking: ‘Why did I do that,’” he said. After a few days, he was hauled into a meeting with two store managers. “I had a feeling about what was going to happen,” he said. He made a final plea, telling his bosses “Waitrose is like my family” but he was still dismissed. Smith told the Guardian he has been diagnosed with anxiety, which he said his managers were aware of.
Waitrose response: A Waitrose spokesperson said: “We take the safety and security of our customers and our partners incredibly seriously and to do this we have policies in place which our partners are aware of and required to follow.
The spokesperson said the policies must be strictly followed because of the potentially serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters. “As a responsible employer, we never want to be in a position where we are notifying families of a tragedy because someone tried to stop a theft. Nothing we sell is worth risking lives for.” The spokesperson added that they could not discuss individual cases but the correct process was being followed, which included a standard appeals process.
Walker suffered from anxiety, of which he said Waitrose was aware, grabbed the bag, struggled with thief, then threw broken egg pieces in frustration and by so doing admits he broke Waitrose policy, of which he was aware and had previously been told not to approach shop lifters. As he was both aware of policy and been previously warned and still approached a shop lifter, Waitrose, by law, must consider risk of repeated behaviour.
If any harm came to Walker or any others as a result of Walker struggling with shop lifters and throwing items in frustration- Waitrose insurers may fail to pay out in compensation claims and may be held accountable for health and safety at work failures. The risk of Waitrose being sued is also increased in context of Walker's known none compliance with policy and his anxiety diagnosis.
Walker's local Waitrose appeal has failed (we don't know if there were any previous written/verbal warnings on his record or any Occupational Health advice that must be complied with).
However Walker does have the right to take his case to a tribunal for unfair dismissal, supported by his union, if he feels Waitrose has acted unfairly.
A sad case.
. , a shop assistant at a branch of Waitrose in Clapham Junction, south London, was going about his normal duties when a customer stopped him. “They told me someone had filled up a Waitrose bag with the eggs,” he said.
The 54-year-old said the shoplifter was a repeat offender. After spotting the thief, he “grabbed the bag” from the shoplifter, who snatched it back and, he said, there was a struggle for a few seconds before it snapped. The Lindt Gold Bunny Easter eggs, which retail for £13 each, fell to the floor and the shoplifter made a dash for the exit. Smith said one of the bunnies broke into pieces. He picked a piece and “threw it out of frustration” towards some shopping trolleys, not aiming it at the shoplifter, he said.
He was told off by his manager and apologised but the matter was escalated. Smith said he was previously told not to approach shoplifters but the toll of seeing them get away with theft repeatedly spurred him into action. “I’ve been there 17 years. I’ve seen it happen every hour of every day for the last five years,” he said.
“It’s everybody from drug addicts to teenagers nicking bits and bobs or walking out with bottles of wine in their arms. We’re not allowed to do anything.”
He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because “shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough”. This left non-security staff, including Smith, on the frontline of the problem.
Despite this, Smith said he regretted how he acted. “When I got home I was punching myself and thinking: ‘Why did I do that,’” he said.
After a few days, he was hauled into a meeting with two store managers. “I had a feeling about what was going to happen,” he said. He made a final plea, telling his bosses “Waitrose is like my family” but he was still dismissed.
“I tried to stay strong and I didn’t say a word but inside I was crying. They led me out the back door by the bins. I just felt demoralised,” he said. Smith has been diagnosed with anxiety, which he said his managers were aware of.
Before being sacked he had recently moved into his own studio flat after living with flatmates for 25 years. He worries about how he will keep a roof over his head. “I’m not too sure what’s going to happen with this place now. I might be homeless. My confidence is on the floor right now,” he said.
“Waitrose is like my family. My friends are there. I was there for 17 years, I must have been doing something right. I’m not a bad or violent or aggressive person. I just got frustrated seeing this day in and day out and not seeing Waitrose do much about it.”
Retail businesses, particularly supermarkets, have seen an increase in shoplifting. In England and Wales, there were 519,381 shoplifting offences in the year to September 2025, up 5% from 492,660 the previous year, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.
These numbers are narrowly below the record levels seen in the 12 months to March 2025, when a total of 530,643 offences were recorded.
In February, the retail trade union Usdaw said workers faced “unacceptable” levels of violence and abuse, with “evidence showing that two-thirds of attacks on retail staff are being triggered by theft or armed robbery”.
On Friday, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Machin, called on the government and London’s mayor to crack down on retail crime, saying it has become “more brazen, more organised and more aggressive”.
A Waitrose spokesperson said: “We take the safety and security of our customers and our partners incredibly seriously and to do this we have policies in place which our partners are aware of and required to follow.
“In reference to the point on guarding – we make absolutely sure that our shops have appropriate levels of guarding and this is constantly adjusted according to the level of risk.”
The spokesperson said the policies must be strictly followed because of the potentially serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters. “As a responsible employer, we never want to be in a position where we are notifying families of a tragedy because someone tried to stop a theft. Nothing we sell is worth risking lives for.”
The spokesperson added that they could not discuss individual cases but the correct process was being followed, which included a standard appeals process.
Thanks for the voice of sanity, it's appreciated. I appear to be the only person who read it.
