Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Dishonest Theft from Employer Over Three Days

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacy technician after he was caught on CCTV stealing money from the till at Haggerston Pharmacy over three days.

Between 27 and 29 November 2019, he:

1. Used the ‘no sale’ function to open the till without recording transactions properly.
2. Took cash from the till after processing card and cash payments.
3. Ensured the till reconciled correctly to avoid detection.
4. Initially denied the full extent of the theft but later admitted to stealing multiple times.

The pharmacy’s superintendent pharmacist noticed discrepancies on CCTV footage and launched an internal investigation.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacy technician’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Multiple Incidents of Theft Over Several Days:
   • This was not a one-time lapse in judgment but repeated acts of dishonesty over three days.
   • CCTV footage showed him taking cash from the till on multiple occasions.
2. Attempts to Conceal the Theft:
   • He used the ‘no sale’ button to open the till and remove cash while ensuring the till balanced correctly.
   • This suggested a degree of planning and calculated dishonesty.
3. Initial Denial and Later Admission:
   • When first confronted, he downplayed the extent of his actions.
   • Later, he admitted to stealing on multiple occasions but could not provide a clear explanation for his behaviour.
4. Employer’s Trust Was Breached:
   • He had worked at Haggerston Pharmacy since 2005, and his employer had supported his professional development.
   • The Committee noted that stealing from an employer is a fundamental breach of trust.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacy technician’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• Dishonesty over multiple days, rather than an isolated incident.
• An abuse of trust, particularly given his long-standing position at the pharmacy.
• His lack of clear insight into the root cause of his actions.

The committee stated:

“The pharmacy technician’s dishonest conduct seriously undermines public confidence in the profession. His actions, even if financially minor, represent a significant breach of trust.”

Despite expressing remorse and regret, the committee found that:

• His insight into the misconduct remained incomplete.
• He had not fully explored why he engaged in dishonest behaviour.

Sanction:

The committee imposed a nine-month suspension, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • Multiple dishonest actions over three days.
  • Theft was premeditated, involving till manipulation.
  • The technician would have continued stealing if he had not been caught on CCTV.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • He admitted to the thefts once confronted.
  • The total amount stolen was relatively small.
  • He had a previously unblemished 14-year career in pharmacy.
  • He had taken remedial steps, such as completing training on professional ethics.

The committee ruled that:

“A period of suspension is appropriate to allow the technician to reflect further on his actions and demonstrate a deeper level of insight before he can be considered fit to return to practice.”

An interim suspension was imposed immediately, preventing him from working as a pharmacy technician before the review hearing.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional honesty, ethical responsibilities, and maintaining trust in pharmacy practice.

1. Dishonesty, Even for Small Amounts, Can Lead to Suspension or Removal:
   • Stealing from an employer is a serious breach of trust, regardless of the amount involved.
   • The GPhC takes financial dishonesty extremely seriously.
2. Attempts to Cover Up Dishonesty Worsen Regulatory Consequences:
   • The pharmacy technician manipulated the till system to conceal the thefts.
   • Regulatory bodies impose harsher sanctions when dishonesty is premeditated.
3. Full Insight and Remediation Are Necessary for Future Reinstatement:
   • The committee found that the technician’s insight into his behaviour was limited.
   • Future reinstatement will depend on demonstrating full remediation.
4. Trust Is a Cornerstone of the Pharmacy Profession:
   • Theft from an employer is considered a fundamental breach of professional trust.
   • Pharmacy professionals must always act with honesty and integrity.

Conclusion:

While the pharmacy technician avoided removal from the register, this case serves as a clear warning that dishonesty—even on a small scale—can lead to serious regulatory action.

The nine-month suspension allows him time to reflect, remediate, and demonstrate that he has learned from his actions.

However, his ability to return to practice will depend on whether he can fully address the ethical and professional concerns raised by the GPhC.