Forcing someone to retire

Gettingtherequickly

Difficult one this, but would appreciate thoughts or comments.

Accountant recently employed in finance dept, assistant been there for years, over pension age. Company owner has advised accountant that assistant had been caught with hand in till and is currently repaying by working some of the time "unpaid" (still ensuring min wage is paid). Appears that will be covered imminently. Assistant aware that accountant knows the history.

However, owner & accountant have now become aware that the hand may have been in the till again, debtor had been advised of new bank details and duly paid into the account, except it is not company account. Now, in fairness, this may be external fraud and they acknowledge that, but instinct says otherwise. Because of the data protection act, the receiving bank won't give details, but going to the police will ensure probable prosecution which would ultimately would not get the money back anyway. They just want to draw a line under it and get rid of the assistant. Assistant unaware of suspicions.

Is there a way of getting rid so they can cut their losses?

Guest101

Uhm Gross Misconduct?!

Gettingtherequickly

Guest101 wrote: »

Uhm Gross Misconduct?!

That was my first thought, but is that possible having "repaid" the known original amount? The second is only suspicion, confirmation would involve police investigation.

Bogalot

This would be a dismissal for reason of gross misconduct, not retirement.

They should instigate the disciplinary procedure, complete an investigation, and then decide if the employee has committed the offence in question. They don't need absolute proof, they just need to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities the person is guilty. They then need to decide if this constitutes gross misconduct (yes) and if so can dismiss.

If this is a small company, or if they think it likely the employee may get litigious, it would be worth consulting with a solicitor or HR consultant to make sure they do everything by the book.

Bogalot

Gettingtherequickly wrote: »

That was my first thought, but is that possible having "repaid" the known original amount? The second is only suspicion, confirmation would involve police investigation.

Do they not have enough evidence to be reasonably certain this person did it? The first offence shows he has a history, surely an audit trail of transactions, communications etc would fill in the blanks?

Guest101

Gettingtherequickly wrote: »

That was my first thought, but is that possible having "repaid" the known original amount? The second is only suspicion, confirmation would involve police investigation.

Gross misconduct does not require a criminal conviction. The dismissal can be perfectly fair even if the person didn't actually do it.

Gettingtherequickly

Guest101 wrote: »

Uhm Gross Misconduct?!

That was my first thought, but is that possible having "repaid" the known original amount? The second is only suspicion, confirmation would involve police investigation.

duchy

Sounds very odd.
The assistant may be dodgy but a company accountant or external auditor should be ble to follow a paper trail to work out the reality of the situation.
The fact this wasn't done on two separate occasions implies a very badly run company or a second agenda.

dadtobe

If they have robust policies in place then I would do the following

Suspend I wouldn't delay on this they could tamper with evidence or delete any trails.
Instigate investigation
If investigation finds said person has broken the law inform the police.
Run the disiplinary without unreasonable delay.
As people has said its not a court case you only need to have reasonable belief.
Dismiss if that is the finding

the police investigation shouldn't hold anything up

dadtobe

100% get legal advice though well worth spending the money.

Masomnia

I would suspend the person immediately. Investigate and have a hearing, if you have reasonable belief that they did it then dismiss.

It obviously wasn't dealt with properly the first time. I can't see why any business would continue to employ someone who stole from them, least of all in financial services.