Disciplinary hearing next week

RobertoMoir

dpassmore wrote: »

RobertoMoir Your arguments are indeed valid, and I totally agree that there should be an element of trust in the workplace.

I am not questioning the integrity of the OP's son - indeed, the company must trust the lad as it seems he does the banking and I am of the belief that he must handle cash on a daily basis.

There is no accusation or proof of a theft of cash. If he could not be trusted, I would also suspect he would have been suspended immediately after the alleged incident.

Quite. They do seem a bit confused if he's gone from trusted to handle the banking to zero just like that. They're clearly doing things poorly there because they were either wrong to trust him at all or they're wrong to mistrust him now. I'd say they're wrong to mistrust him... if I was going to rip off a store and I was doing the banking I'd conspire to be "mugged" by friends rather than dip my hands in the till for petty change.

BUT..........

This situation may or may not be a case where the company (or certainly the management) are allowing a routine violation of the companies codes of practice by allowing all and sundry to access sensitive information.

The question is are they 'allowing' it? in that case. I think it's arguable either way.

This assertion is compounded as the OP has indicated that everyone apparently does the same. I would find it hard to comprehend if the company were not aware of this as it seems to have been a regular occurrence based on the OP's posting.

Of course, that does not make it right as the employees should have been aware they were wrong, but the Management have to shoulder some of the blame as well.

Quite so. It may be of course that it was/is commonplace but the store management didn't realise this. That makes them woefully inept, which is surely a problem for the company, but doesn't make breaking the rules ok.

The company (a large Pan European Business) were just too lazy to register some relevant employees on their IT system therefore they had to use colleagues passwords to access the company's IT system. These passwords were issued by the Managers - which itself was a breach of the companies IT policy - but became an accepted routine violation.

Would it be fair in those circumstances to discipline those workers using unauthorised passwords - which was technically a gross misconduct matter?

Clearly not. I don't think the situation is the same as the OP's son, mind you. In the case you've described I'd say that was a horrific procedural failing on the part of the IT team failing to add users to the system and the managers for perpetuating the situation instead of insisting the IT team sort themselves out.

As an IT professional it saddens me to see so many IT people who still think their business support service "tail" should be wagging the business "dog" and make people jump through too many hoops to get things done and they end up causing situations like that one. I've seen other business support teams (e.g. HR, facilities) behave in the same manner too, it's still shockingly bad practice either way.

Just before I left the company, I accompanied a fellow union member into a disciplinary hearing with a charge of - breaching the companies IT policy.

That person had sent a personal email from the companies system.

The company attempted dismissal - but having cited the inconsistencies in the companies monitoring of the policy and being 'selective' on who they decide to punish when they were knowingly allowing breaches when it suited.

I suggested that if the company progressed the matter, we would be claiming victimisation.

I suspect you're thinking the same thing I am about the OP's case then, and about whether or not the management did know that others were doing it.

Again, I reiterate, two wrongs don't make a right, but a company needs to be consistent in their monitoring of their policies and procedures due to the fact that even if an employee is guilty of any 'offence', the company can still find themselves taken to tribunal for procedural shortcomings.

In this case, If all of the information has been forthcoming, it seems there have been some procedural shortcomings even BEFORE the hearing. I am referring to the letter and important information that was not forthcoming to the OP's son.

That too, and while I'm aware to some degree that you're correct about the breaches of the disciplinary process, I'm going to admit I'm no expert at that side of things and limit my comments to agreeing with you based on my limited understanding.

I think we are in agreement that the OP's son has potentially breached a company policy - but it would seem that the policy and its monitoring is sadly lacking.

Hopefully the OP will post the outcome of the hearing and it would be interesting to know how the company address the matter.

I think we agree on more things than not, going through this post. We're just looking through different sides of the prism.

I would love to hear the outcome of this too. I hope that the OP's son can return to work and put this nasty affair behind him, and that the store tightens up its processes so that it's difficult or impossible for staff to get caught out like this by accident. I have to say if I was their firm's IT security manager that I'd want supervisory till access to be done by two-factor authentication, and that would put a stop to any unintentional use of management credentials.

Hootie19

I will update you after my son's hearing tomorrow morning. However, having spoken to him again, with my friend, I had the initial story slightly wrong.

He was caught by the manager using the manager's log in details at around 7.15am, not late in the day.

There were only my son and the manager in the store, and the manager had left my son alone while he (the manager) went to the Post Office/Newsagents next door to their store. The manager left my son to continue preparing the store for the day's trading, and that is why he was looking to see what the change float situation was in store. Not that that excuses what he did, but it is a reason for it.

When the area manager spoke to my son, following his manager reporting the incident to her, she said to my son that his behaviour was "dodgy and suspicious" - which sounds as though she had found him guilty before hearing any evidence. Hopefully she will not be involved in tomorrow hearing, but it seems that by her saying this to my son (which of course is only his word against hers) she has shown herself to be prejudiced.

My son still has not received a copy of the company's Disciplinary Procedure, IT Procedure, Lone Working Procedure or the Union Rep's details, despite requesting these last week (can possibly "blame" the Royal Mail for that, but the letter informing him of the time and date of the hearing was only received on Friday, with the meeting being set for Monday at 9am. Clearly insufficient notice of the meeting, to allow him to prepare a case, or to contact another member of staff to accompany him). Under ACAS guidelines, my son should ideally have had a copy of the Disciplinary Procedure sent to him with the letter informing him of the hearing date and time.

We are hopeful that he will avoid dismissal (as it seems that if this was a possibility, it should have been communicated in the letter telling him about the time and date of the meeting), but it seems that as the company have not adhered to ACAS guidelines on several issues, he may be able to appeal.

Will update tomorrow.

Emmzi

note it is not the company's job to tell him who the rep is - that is between your son and the union

dickydonkin

We are hopeful that he will avoid dismissal (as it seems that if this was a possibility, it should have been communicated in the letter telling him about the time and date of the meeting), but it seems that as the company have not adhered to ACAS guidelines on several issues, he may be able to appeal.

There is no 'MAY' about it, if the worst outcome happens, it is a right to appeal and that MUST be stated in any subsequent notice of dismissal.

Furthermore, any subsequent appeal must be heard by someone more senior than the person(s) conducting the hearing - but let's not get too far ahead here.

There seems to be some procedural deficiencies here, but just see what happens tomorrow - hint an those shortcomings at the hearing, you can cite those reasons (among others) for unfair dismissal at a later date if necessary.

It seems you have got everything prepared and just make sure your son has the questions written down.

'Dodgy and Suspicious' from someone who was not even there is a subjective claim and would not stand up in any tribunal.

If your son was left alone because the manager had gone to the paper shop, this alone must be some breach of company policy. The safety of your son and security of the store could certainly have been compromised.

Hopefully, the matter will be resolved favourably tomorrow.

RobertoMoir

Hootie19 wrote: »

I will update you after my son's hearing tomorrow morning. However, having spoken to him again, with my friend, I had the initial story slightly wrong.

He was caught by the manager using the manager's log in details at around 7.15am, not late in the day.

There were only my son and the manager in the store, and the manager had left my son alone while he (the manager) went to the Post Office/Newsagents next door to their store. The manager left my son to continue preparing the store for the day's trading, and that is why he was looking to see what the change float situation was in store. Not that that excuses what he did, but it is a reason for it.

This does put a rather different complexion on things imho If anyone has been "dodgy and suspicious", I'd suggest it was the person who left for God knows where halfway through the opening routine. Who knows what they were doing while they were off the premises, or what they took with them? (Not that I'm suggesting your son even "goes there" during his meeting mind you... just saying this changes things a lot imho.)

Hootie19

Well, he's kept his job.

But he has a final written warning for using the manager's log in details, and a first written warning for the performance related issues. These warnings will stay on his file for a year. Written confirmation will be sent in due course.

The performance related issues turned out to be stock rotation and they also raised concerns that although they are not supposed to have more than £500 in their tills, at times his till uplift has been £600+.

The tills do not indicate how much money is in there, but it does show on a screen in the office. Apparently, because he has been there for more than two years, he should know how much is in the till, and call for an uplift. This issue has never been raised with him before.

Much as I expected, my son didn't put forward any kind of defence. He is not particularly eloquent at the best of times, let alone when he's under any kind of pressure. He can't handle confrontation and won't speak up for himself - this is exactly why I hoped that my friend would have been allowed to accompany him and give him a bit of self confidence.

The meeting was carried out by the area manager ("dodgy and suspicious") and there was a minute taker.

He asked about being left in the shop alone, and apparently that's ok as the manager was only popping out for a couple of minutes.

So that's it. I asked if he wanted to try and appeal against their decision, but as he rightly said, he'd be in an appeal on his own again, and wouldn't know what to say, so he'd probably only make things worse.

This has probably been a useful, but rather harsh, lesson in life, and hopefully he will learn from it and move forward.

Thank you all for your advice and opinions. I'm only sorry that my son wasn't able to make better use of the advice.

jdx

He kept his job. That's good news.

If he did want to appeal, he would send out a letter first with the points he'd talk about. If you feel that there are areas that needs to be looked at and you're unhappy with the decision, then you/he should appeal. If not, keeping his job is still a very good result. And like you said, he'd learn from it and move on. All the best.

dickydonkin

It would seem there has been failures from both sides, but if I was in the same situation, I would accept the punishment, learn from it, draw a line under the whole incident and move on.

The outcome, although not ideal, could have been a lot worse which would have had immediate implications and certainly impacted on future jobseeking.

Obviously, the OP's son is going to have to 'keep his nose clean' for the next year.

Hootie19

My son still hasn't received a letter from the company informing him of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, nor has he received a copy of the minutes of that meeting.

I was under the impression that he really ought to have had these two things by now. It's over a month since the disciplinary took place.

Should he should have been informed of his right to appeal the decision (if he wanted to) in the letter? If so, by not delivering the letter to him yet, have they denied him a legal right?

He telephoned head office about this at the end of last month and they said that the letter hadn't been typed up until 23rd February and had been passed to the area manager to sign and pass onto him. She still hasn't done this (presumably "pass on" means by hand, rather than via the post?)

Should my son be doing anything about this, or just keeping his head down and carrying on doing his job. He doesn't want to rock the boat or cause any trouble, but just wants to move on and get this behind him, which he can't do while the issue of the letter is still outstanding.

WeakHeart

How annoying. Yes he should follow this up as he should have a copy of the letter and if he requests a copy of the notes taken too. Sounds like he wasn't planning to appeal anyway but they didn't know that!