Will she be fired?

silkyuk9

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Legally, she’s stolen nothing. The money was supposed to be in her possession, and it was. It was technically a short-term conditional gift (I have our Head of Legal with me now)

I do appreciate that this is a stressful time for her, especially working in a ‘position of responsibility’, however the correct thing to do (hindsight is a wonderful thing!) is to speak to a colleague to see if she could borrow money. There’s a taxi account with us for that reason, with money to be paid cash day after wages paid, however I understand that not al companies work like that.

Best of luck for her, however I do not see how something that was not officially work-related can be brought into work. We run a lottery syndicate, and what happens with that is none of my business, however I do check the 40-ish lines we pay each week for personal reference, as we play online (goes through a separate current account that belongs to my PA), but certainly know that I can’t bring disciplinary action on the result of this, as it’s out of the scope of work.

CK

Yep i agree withyou. the only concern is lieing about the situation.

boobies

silkyuk9 wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

was the lottery on for that week yes or no?

Ok, you get on a bus with a £50 note and £10 in 1 pound coins (I know she did not have any money except lottery) you hand over the £50 note and the driver says, sorry dont accept £50 notes, what do you do, walk home or use one of the lottery pound coins that belong to 10 people who have given you the job as lottery 'manager'

Completely irrelevant as the person did not have a £50 note, she "ran short" and hence took the money to make the amount up. She had no spare money on her.

silkyuk9

LadyMissA wrote: »

Surely any sydicate that is doing things correctly sign the lottery tickets and a contract each week with the numbers played on it. That's what we used to do each week so it was confirmed the tickets where actually bought and the numbers correct etc. Then if we won no single person could go and claim the winnings as all of our signatures were on the back on the tickets.

They may well have a signed contract but someone has to place the money on. This person is given responsibility, wether she puts it on on a Monday, Tuesday or Friday. The money is not stolen until the draw takes place and they have no ticket.

silkyuk9

boobies wrote: »

Completely irrelevant as the person did not have a £50 note, she "ran short" and hence took the money to make the amount up. She had no spare money on her.

So is that theoretical person a thief?

whitewing

Three of her colleagues have been sufficiently concerned about her behaviour that they raised a formal complaint. Sounds like there is more going on than a simple one-off. How did they even know she had borrowed the money?

It sounds very lax for an accountancy firm.

boobies

silkyuk9 wrote: »

So is that theoretical person a thief?

I would not say that they were a thief, as there was no intent to permanently deprive. I would say that they have breached the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence for two reasons - she was given the money for safekeeping, not for her to dip into when she was short, and she lied about it.

LadyMissA

Couldn't she just say she took her stake out?

Catherine_Johnson_2

silkyuk9 wrote: »

....... so in theory, shes not stolen anythnig (sic) as they have given her money to place on the lottery, was the draw placed? if yes, well how can it be stolen......

Er, yes she has stolen the money. The money was given to her by her colleagues, in trust that she would use it to buy lottery tickets. It wasn't given to her to buy bus tickets. So, clearly she has stolen it. And she obviously knew what she had done was wrong because she lied about it.

I really can't see any outcome apart from dismissal. If she'd dipped her hand into someone's pocket or purse and taken the money she'd certainly be dismissed, even if she claimed she was going to pay it back later. I really can't see any difference. It wasn't her money.

nightingalesgarden

I'm actually not too worried about the lying - this can be explained at the hearing - where she will get a fair chance to give her side of the story. If she states that she was anxious and nervous then this shouldn't be a deciding factor.

What I am worried about is that she works for an accountancy firm.

Just because in other environments she merely would get a slap on the hand doesn't mean that she will get it here.

It doesn't seem a huge deal but in a firm where 100% trust with money is required then it may be. It may be due to policy that they really do not have any choice but to apply dismissal to any such case.

She needs to be brave and truthful in the hearing.

I see two options if she feels during the meeting that it's going to end in dismissal

a) Let it play through and appeal their decision - I do think it sounds a weak reason for dismissal but they may have policy and practice to back this up.

b) or to ask for an "off the record conversation" and ask where this could head. She should ask for respect and dignity from the organisation where she has worked diligently and if they are going to dismiss to allow her to resign before, with her notice and reference intact. Off the record means just that, they cannot take it into account e.g. accept her resignation, add it to the hearing...

Note - she should have this in writing (the invite) that one of the outcomes of the meeting could be dismissal - if not, then it's not a hearing about Gross misconduct.

silkyuk9

boobies wrote: »

I would not say that they were a thief, as there was no intent to permanently deprive. I would say that they have breached the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence for two reasons - she was given the money for safekeeping, not for her to dip into when she was short, and she lied about it.

Yes we know she lied and thats going to be her down fall. No court in this land would prosecute someone who is in charge of a lottery syndicate for spending some of it on a bus fare,when the lottery was placed before the draw deadline (We do not know for a fact that the lottery was placed but I'm thinking it was)