Somebody from a different department shoe-horned their policy to my friend's workplace without going to check the other department's practices and procedures. They had little or next to no experience of retail. When it was written it was referring to open rooms and areas so the specific instruction was not to leave cash unattended or anywhere that didn't have a safe. The policy was not amended to take into consideration that one or two other units were using safes and secured rooms as opposed to basic rooms and open areas. In addition to all of this, the head honcho and upper management are responsible for not having changed the combination on the safe for 13 years despite the fact that the staff is continually changing. So not only is the combination not being changed, the safe is not being locked and my mate is attending his disciplinary for not following a procedure that wouldn't have made a difference with regards to the safety of the cash even if he had followed the instructions of policy to the letter. In addition to this, they won't buy a safe the staff can use that works efficiently and correctlybecause it's too expensive. Absolutely crazy and pathetic.
Friend has a disciplinary (at work) advice.
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
How has it even got to a disciplinary? Surely e-mail HR copying in his current manager and/or manager's manager and point out that this is a waste of time and this is the procedure that the team currently uses. His manager ought to then be dealing with the other department and either telling them to wind their necks in of telling the team members that the procedure will now change..
It seems really silly it has even got to this point, surely a lack of communication? I mean as soon as the problem was raised his management ought to have got involved.
It seems really silly it has even got to this point, surely a lack of communication? I mean as soon as the problem was raised his management ought to have got involved.
This.
Doesn't matter what's written in the rules if the practice has been known about and accepted by his senior colleagues.
I am afraid that in my experience when disciplinary action is taken, for 'common practice', it is usually because the management wish to get rid of the individual. the procedure is long, and a case has to be built up.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,786
Yeh I remember someone being disciplined for something where if anyone else did it, it would have meant nothing. They definitely wanted them gone.
Regardless of common practise and poor policy, you said it says this " the specific instruction was not to leave cash unattended or anywhere that didn't have a safe"
And that was not followed
Question 1 - Did he raise the issue that policy could not be followed at that specific time with anyone?
Question 2 - Was the policy adequately communicated, trained and are there records - this is where the unsuitability of the policy vs common practice should have been raised. If this did not occur or there are no records or the issue was raised but no action was taken, that is a good defence
I sympathise with everything else you are saying but would not want to be relying on "everyone does it" or "policy is not written well".
Sounds like he needs a union or at the least a works council
Good question above, if this is a disciplinary, what was the detail of the investigation?
Good luck
And that was not followed
Question 1 - Did he raise the issue that policy could not be followed at that specific time with anyone?
Question 2 - Was the policy adequately communicated, trained and are there records - this is where the unsuitability of the policy vs common practice should have been raised. If this did not occur or there are no records or the issue was raised but no action was taken, that is a good defence
I sympathise with everything else you are saying but would not want to be relying on "everyone does it" or "policy is not written well".
Sounds like he needs a union or at the least a works council
Good question above, if this is a disciplinary, what was the detail of the investigation?
Good luck
That doesn't matter at the point the new policy went into effect they are basically saying from this date we are doing it this way now and the old way is incorrect. At that point you cannot state the old way for x years as a defence to ignore the change in rules.
Now its a different thing if your friend is being singled out and everyone else still does it the old way. That's poor management. But you cannot point back to 5+ years ago and go that's how its always been done not when they have said stop doing it that way.
There's the rub. The manager who wrote the policy procedure has been complicit and silent throughout.
I have just received a text indicating the emphasis on the questions my friend was required to answer were mainly concerned about the money that went missing. As an overview of the situation I sent my savaging of the policy to the union rep. Unknown to me the rep provided the copy to the people in the meeting and asked for it to be included in the minutes. The feeling from the rep is it went quite well, and though she can't say for certain, she doesn't think my mate will be disciplined. Fingers crossed.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 3,098
You didn't think that this key piece of information was important to the OP ??
Of course the missing money was significant and it was mentioned. But it went missing in transit and delivery and not from within the premise's my friend worked or through any practices used when handling it by him.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
I am not so clear about where the money went missing, you say in transit, do you say this because it is proven, or because you know your friend is not a thief?
If my job is to deliver £5000, and i pocket £1000 and deliver £4000 to your friend who accepts it, then it is entirely his fault, and the money is lost on the premises, NOT in transit.
I would sack your friend based on what i have quoted from you.
There is no "chance", you simply count the money, and then put it in the safe.
The main thing here is to count it, and short of some sort of emergency like a fire or some sort of violence, there is no excuse.
To be honest if i came in as the manager there tomorrow, i'd probably sack everyone, atleast from what i am a reading it seems like it would go that way
The money was counted later by my friend, confirmed and witnessed and signed as correct by another authorised individual. The check is always conducted in the secure room recorded by CCTV. So why should he or anybody apart from perhaps the management be sacked?
The point to stress here is the money going missing has had nothing to do with with my mate. It is a separate issue when you examine the evidence. Somewhere between it going back to Finance it has gone missing. It is Finance/portering (if that is what they are called) that should carry the blame.
Rather pettily my mate is being blamed for not placing the amount in a safe that isn't locked (due to management) in a room, that for all purposes was designed to act as a safe. The room has no windows, a steel door with two BSI compliant locks and CCTV. Nobody is allowed in to this room who is not authorised and even then unnaccompanied. The policy documentation alleging the breach was not written taking the usage of this secure room into consideration. There is no case to answer. The people involved in doing the disciplinary leap-frogged the informal process to which Dowie referred to earlier- which I can confirm was pointed out by the union rep on arrival.
Last edited:
Which is besides the point. You friend still broke the rules and ignored policy which is his fault. He shouldn't get punished for the missing money but he is not 100% innocent either as he clearly broke the rules. More so if the room is used for other things. Is it just a safe and nothing else?
We have a similar secure room, inside a secure room, inside a 3rd room with a safe in. People don't leave the items that belong in the safe outside the safe in that room as its less secure. The same applies to your friend. There are a few situations where leaving the money outside the safe is less secure then inside even in a room like that.
Last edited:
Just a safe they apparently can't lock. So actually placing the money there wouldn't have made any tangible difference.The rules, rather rediculously weren't written to accommodate the use of a secured room but mention only open and till areas. Crazily nobody appears to care about the other money being stored there? My mate hasn't been immediately suspended so I can assume/hope that is a good thing?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 7,321
- Location
- Western Seaboard
It is cast iron procedure that everything is kept under lock and key, and that procedure never be broken even if aforementioned employee be about to crack.
But it can do even if it’s unlocked. For example person X might have justification to go into the room but not have justification to look inside the safe. If the money was in the safe person X would not see it, should not open the safe and the money would be more secure.
If person X has rights to be in the room but not rights to be inside the safe at that point in time by leaving the money outside the safe it has been made easier for person X to steal the money. Yes it unlikely but it can happen. There is a tangible difference between a person being in a secure room and a person being inside a safe inside a secure room at a point in time when they should not be inside the safe. I would assume that's why the policy says the money should be inside the safe.
Then there is the CCTV side of things. Anyone with access to the CCTV can see there is cash laying about which is less secure then the cash being out of site in a safe.
Last edited:
There's usually a tacit assumption that the rules being written are applicable and appropriate to the thing being written for. In this case, they were not.
@ Pottsey. Nobody is allowed in that room who isn't authorized to handle the money
The room, in this instance is safer than the safe.
Last edited: