Poll: suspension from work

Should the OP be banned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 185 80.4%

  • No

    Votes: 45 19.6%
  • Total voters
    230
Castiel said:
I doubt it. But I suspect that there will worded somewhere that discounts are only to be applied once and it isn't really clear exactly what the OP is being investigated for, it sound like it's more to do with using his discount for others (in other words buying a gift card as a gift for his Dad and then using said card and applying his discount to it).

Remember it doesn't have to be specifically stated in his contract either, policy can be in any number of mediums, such as handbooks, guides to conduct, weekly/monthly postings and so on, even common practice.

Also gross misconduct doesn't have to have an exhaustive list of examples in the contract either...so if in the opinion of those investigating the OP had reasonable knowledge that he was gaining more than the mandated discount through this "loophole" it can be construed quite correctly as gross misconduct and being tantamount to defrauding (theft) the company.

They may accept it was an aberration or mistake, but that might depend on the manager, staff position of the company and so on.
Click to expand...

I'd strongly suspect there would be a sentence somewhere that states something along the usual lines of "This offer cannot be used in conjunction with other discounts".
 
I knew OP was in the wrong when he said he got his sisters boyfriend a birthday present.

Who in the right mind does that.
 
newgamer91 said:
gross misconduct and theft relating to miss use of staff discount.

At the company I work for employee's get a 20% discount

In the meeting my manger asked me questions like do I know what the staff discount percentage is
Click to expand...

sounds more like they dont like the double dipping rather than buying for friends
 
Castiel said:
It doesn't stop you buying giftcards as you suggested.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree that most places say that you cannot use this for buying goods for others but that is a very tricky thing to prove and they wouldn't have called him into the office for that reason. The reason he would have been called in to talk is because he was using vouchers as well as his staff discount.
 
fez said:
Oh I agree that most places say that you cannot use this for buying goods for others but that is a very tricky thing to prove and they wouldn't have called him into the office for that reason. The reason he would have been called in to talk is because he was using vouchers as well as his staff discount.
Click to expand...

You might be right, we simply don't know as yet. I have known people dismissed for misusing their discount privileges however, so don't discount it.

(Pun intended)
 
newgamer91 said:
...............
Mostly I would buy the gift card for my dad for birthday, Easter, father’s day etc. and then he would tell me what he wanted to buy with them so I would go into work and use the gift card to buy the item he wanted and then given my 20% staff discount on what I bought. Some of the gift cards I would use to buy something I wanted also.
Click to expand...


No idea if its against your works rules but clearly you knew you were taking the **** doubling up and gaining 40% discount rate.
 
Castiel said:
And you know this how?

Given what we know, and the most common provisos in discount privilege conduct, he has admitted he broke that rule...he used his discount for good purchased on behalf of his Dad. This can be construed as Gross Misconduct.

Everything else is conjecture.
Click to expand...

Any of this is conjecture

They don't know anything about him notionally giving a gift card to his dad and then notionally buying stuff on his behalf when they first called him in re gross conduct - they've merely seen a gift card being purchased using his discount then that discount being applied again when he used that card... that is what they called him in for initially and asked him to confirm he knew what the staff discount was... It seems likely that double dipping on the discount is the main issue... buying something on behalf of someone else is no doubt also against the rules but harder to detect and easy to workaround... while he's since admitted to doing this too it seems more likely it is the double discount which they're concerned about.
 
I've seen a few comments about the company not following correct procedure with respect to disciplinary action. Although I do not know the company's exact policy I suspect the suspension has been made to allow further investigation. No disciplinary action has yet been taken. This will occur at the next meeting and the employee will on this occasion be asked if they would like to be accompanied. The company will then state what their grounds are for pursuing disciplinary action. The employee will be able to give their opinion and then the company will respond with if they think disciplinary action is justified and what form this will take. As gross misconduct has been mentioned this is likely to be immediate dismissal. The employee will then have the right of appeal and failing that can seek further legal action for unfair dismissal if they see fit.

I think it is clear what the problem is and regardless of what is written in contract, guidelines etc unless somewhere it states that double discount is specifically allowed, you are out. (I'm sure somewhere it will say all employees are required to behave ethically?)

I can't see any other outcome as if they let you off, then to apply different action for the same offence elsewhere, this may be grounds for unfair dismissal.
 
dowie said:
Any of this is conjecture

They don't know anything about him notionally giving a gift card to his dad and then notionally buying stuff on his behalf when they first called him in re gross conduct - they've merely seen a gift card being purchased using his discount then that discount being applied again when he used that card... that is what they called him in for initially and asked him to confirm he knew what the staff discount was... It seems likely that double dipping on the discount is the main issue... buying something on behalf of someone else is no doubt also against the rules but harder to detect and easy to workaround... while he's since admitted to doing this too it seems more likely it is the double discount which they're concerned about.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it does appear if this is the case and his record otherwise is good and there is no specific reference to not attributing a discount to goods bought on a gift card the company is going to have difficulty in disciplining him.

The double discount is technically a flaw in the system itself (where giftcards attract staff mandated discounts) and while it could be argued that he should have realised it might be questionable, it is also not entirely his fault IF a few things are clarified:

A) Does it state anywhere or is it implied anywhere that staff using discounted Giftcards should not receive further staff discount on goods bought with that giftcard.

B) Did he apply the discount himself, or was the discount applied at the checkout by another member of staff (this goes to his defence)

C) Is there a defining policy whereby Staff Discount privileges are to applied only once in any transaction or related transaction. (Again, can it be reasonably assumed that discounting one item to attain a further discount on a subsequent item is seen as fraudulent)

Without some specificity as to the actual charge against him (misuse of discount privileges leading to theft is not enough as that can apply to anything he's said and more) we will find it difficult to advise him.

Given that the management spoke to him informally and then ensured Employee Relations made the decision to suspend implies that the company do have reasonable and verifiable grounds for his suspension and subsequent disciplinary under the terms of Gross Misconduct, which can lead to summary dismissal.

I don't think the giftcard is the issue, I suspect it is the application of the discounts to subsequent transactions that may be the issue, either by circumventing company policies (as shown in item B) or through breaking mandated policies such as those we have both spoken about.
 
the company simply shouldnt have allowed giftcards to be purchased at below market value, thats what opens up the potential for abuse in the first place
 
Was this a disciplinary hearing? Sounds a bit suspect with having a note taker in the room also.

If it was indeed a disciplinary hearing then you should have had notice in writing beforehand to give you enough time to prepare and bring a union rep or colleague along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom