The flavour of success after an impulsive bite to eat left a sour taste.

Trying to prove your point at work can sometimes go terribly wrong and have severe consequences, as Ally discovered.

The supermarket bakery worker was putting doughnuts in a bag when he dropped one on the floor, very quickly picked it up, and joked with a colleague it could go back in the packaging because of the five-second rule.

Ally said it was not a myth, because if the food is on the floor for less than five seconds it is still safe to eat.

Laughing Ally pretended he was going to put the doughnut back in the packaging, took a bite of it and then disposed of it.

Ally was shocked by the reaction to what he did. He was later accused of theft and suspended from work.

Devastated Ally, who was in his 60s, felt it was an overreaction, especially as he had over 12 years’ service, a perfect disciplinary record, and he only took one bite out of a waste item.

Remorseful Ally apologised immediately and offered to pay for the item, so that it would not be considered theft.

His supervisor rejected the offer and said Ally could explain himself during the disciplinary investigation.

The company disciplinary policy made it clear a fact-finding meeting will always be held with the employee as part of an investigation.

However, when Ally contacted our Employee Support Centre for help, he explained that a fact-finding meeting never took place.

When he described to our representative what happened instead, it was immediately obvious that Ally had been treated unfairly.

He said his supervisor had witnessed what happened, suspended him the same day and then invited him to a disciplinary hearing the following day.

Ally was not given an invitation to the hearing or any evidence to support the allegation.

The supervisor said that as he had witnessed what had happened it was a straightforward case.

Ally questioned the process. However, his boss said that because he essentially admitted the allegation, in taking a bite of the doughnut, the matter could be dealt with quickly.

Ally was told because it was gross misconduct he could be sacked, but if he accepted a final written warning it would be the end of the matter.

He reluctantly accepted the warning, felt it was unfair and as if he had no other choice. The 12-month warning was later confirmed in writing

It was Ally’s daughter who later told him it was wrong, he should fight it and put him in touch with us.

Our representative helped Ally to submit a disciplinary appeal. It was on the grounds the disciplinary process was unfair and the warning unduly harsh.

There was plenty of evidence presented at the appeal hearing to successfully argue the warning should be overturned.

To support that the disciplinary process was unfair, our representative highlighted the failure to conduct an investigation in line with company policy and the denial of Ally’s statutory right to be accompanied at what was said to be a disciplinary hearing.

In addition he highlighted breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice in the supervisor’s conflict of interest in being a witness and involved in the case and issuing the warning; Ally not being given reasonable time to prepare for a disciplinary hearing; and not providing any tangible evidence to support the allegation.

In terms of the allegation, it was said it was a mistake by Ally and a spur of the moment action to take a bite of the doughnut to prove his point to his colleague.

The fact Ally accepted it was a mistake; was remorseful and apologetic; a good employee with a long period of service and exemplary disciplinary record; and what he did was out of character, was explained to the hearing.

The disciplinary appeal hearing chair asked Ally several questions about what happened.

She later adjourned the hearing before deciding to uphold the appeal and remove the final written warning from his record.