Facing a Disciplinary hearing. Help please
Discussion
photosnob said:
I'd get on with my life and enjoy my new job.
He's had a nice holiday - why go through more rubbish when there is little to gain? He's won this one and I congratulate him for it.
Because if any future employer asks for references then they can happily reply with 'Dismissed - Gross Misconduct related to internal compliance', which given the lack of any appeal from him they can reasonably say is factual. Many large companies with remote corporate functions will block the hire for these reasons, and not really be interested in the details.He's had a nice holiday - why go through more rubbish when there is little to gain? He's won this one and I congratulate him for it.
If his new role doesn't work out, and they decide to terminate him in his first 2 years, his reference record will include 1 summary dismissal GM, and followed by another termination - would you hire that? Most corporates would definitely not.
So it really is a good use of his time from a future risk management perspective to ensure that he does not have a GM dismissal on that record
So let me see now - have I got this right
Manager makes mistake last year - said mistake would have cost a 500 million contract.
Sharp thinking employee who reports to manager - realises that he or she has 2 options to address mistake - breach authorisation limit set by company by 1000 pounds - or the company loses a 500 million contract.
Said employee was acting in the best interests of company in breaching the limit - and saved a 500 million contract - with no apparent other issues - he or she just broke a rule on paper.
So managers way of saying thank you - is to haul said employee before a disciplinary - not because of the original offence itself - but because the employee - who saved the managers skin - actually got new employment.
What a horrible manager and company
With any bit of luck if the same mistake happens again - the next sharp employee - will just happily leave a 500 million contract down the drain - because that's what the rule book said to do
Manager makes mistake last year - said mistake would have cost a 500 million contract.
Sharp thinking employee who reports to manager - realises that he or she has 2 options to address mistake - breach authorisation limit set by company by 1000 pounds - or the company loses a 500 million contract.
Said employee was acting in the best interests of company in breaching the limit - and saved a 500 million contract - with no apparent other issues - he or she just broke a rule on paper.
So managers way of saying thank you - is to haul said employee before a disciplinary - not because of the original offence itself - but because the employee - who saved the managers skin - actually got new employment.
What a horrible manager and company
With any bit of luck if the same mistake happens again - the next sharp employee - will just happily leave a 500 million contract down the drain - because that's what the rule book said to do
Sir Fergie said:
With any bit of luck if the same mistake happens again - the next sharp employee - will just happily leave a 500 million contract down the drain - because that's what the rule book said to do
They would probably sack that employee for incompetence! They can't have it both waysSir Fergie said:
Sharp thinking employee who reports to manager - realises that he or she has 2 options to address mistake - breach authorisation limit set by company by 1000 pounds - or the company loses a 500 million contract.
It strikes me as unlikely (being polite) that a £500M contact could be lost due to £1000.NDA said:
Sounds like they hate you.
Such odd behaviour from a company.
In my experience, not unusual when it comes to company cars. I've heard many times of employers turning up mob-handed to take cars back - first job I had on the road they used to do it with poorly performing sales people, they'd just turn up at the house and take everything related to the job, including the car.Such odd behaviour from a company.
OTOH I can't tell you how many people I know who crashed their company cars while working their notice, one guy writing his off and quite badly injuring himself while driving into work for the last time. We took the £1000 excess off him too (which normally was over-looked).
Sheepshanks said:
Sir Fergie said:
Sharp thinking employee who reports to manager - realises that he or she has 2 options to address mistake - breach authorisation limit set by company by 1000 pounds - or the company loses a 500 million contract.
It strikes me as unlikely (being polite) that a £500M contact could be lost due to £1000.I can see why a customers thinking on continuing 500 k contract due to not getting 1000 rebate - could be to get out of the contract as early as possible - and not renew.
Potential scenarios where it could happen
1) Contract is coming near its end - so Customer can choose NOT to renew for any reason they please - you sign a 3 year contract with a supplier - when 3 years up - the contract can be renewed again - or customer can walk away.
2) The rebate was to address performance issues with the contract - depending on the contract this could be grounds for customer to walk away.
3) Contract may not be the long term contract you associate with 500 k - but might be for only 12 months depending on the type of contract.
4) the contract is for something like a fleet of trucks (I doubt it in this case just thinking generally) - which are EASILY sourced elsewhere. I mention trucks as an example - as you don't need a lot of those to make up a 500 million contract for the supply of them. Or a long contract either.
5) Customer is of vital importance to the company - and was able to use that power when drawing up the contract.
6) Two competing companies supplying the product and service - both evenly matched - small things can impact on the decision to award projects
Your scenario on the company cars being crashed during the notice period sound even more unlikely tbh
The other point is that just because an account is generating a lot of revenue does not mean it is profitable, or necessarily a desirable account to keep. Paying a rebate to retain may be the right intent by an individual to preserve a relationship - best intentions, etc, but not always in the best interests of the business.
Vaud said:
The other point is that just because an account is generating a lot of revenue does not mean it is profitable, or necessarily a desirable account to keep. Paying a rebate to retain may be the right intent by an individual to preserve a relationship - best intentions, etc, but not always in the best interests of the business.
A fair point - but 1) In itself - its hardly a gross conduct situation
2) Should we be looking (as a company) to review how it prices a contract up - and how it calculates the cost - if a 500 k contract isn't making money. The question should be - why isn't it making money - what can be done to address it.
3) Should the OP and others involved in the contract - be told this is a contract we wish to wind down or not take so seriously anymore. In other words not a desirable account to keep. If this was the case - and the OP knew about it - he could have avoided this mess by not paying the rebate.
He paid the rebate BECAUSE he thought he was trying to act in the COMPANIES (not his own - important distinction) best interest.
right - my final point I hope for this thread.
In hindsight - always a wonderful thing
Would it have being better for the OP to do the 6,000 rebate - over TWO rebates - one rebate to customer X of 5,000 and another subsequent rebate of 1,000 to the same customer.
So he won't have breaced his limit of 5,000 - but the customer will have got rebates totalling 6,000.
Alternatively - depending on Management (bearing in mind he may have had a different view of them last year - not realising the sort of people they really are) - could or should the OP have seen the issue - need a 6 k rebate to keep 500 k customer on board - and flagged this up with someone with the authorisation to do a 6 k rebate.
In hindsight - always a wonderful thing
Would it have being better for the OP to do the 6,000 rebate - over TWO rebates - one rebate to customer X of 5,000 and another subsequent rebate of 1,000 to the same customer.
So he won't have breaced his limit of 5,000 - but the customer will have got rebates totalling 6,000.
Alternatively - depending on Management (bearing in mind he may have had a different view of them last year - not realising the sort of people they really are) - could or should the OP have seen the issue - need a 6 k rebate to keep 500 k customer on board - and flagged this up with someone with the authorisation to do a 6 k rebate.
Sir Fergie said:
Your scenario on the company cars being crashed during the notice period sound even more unlikely tbh
I did this once 
It was a genuine accident.
I was actually driving the car back to return it. I was approaching a roundabout. An ancient Austin Allegro ahead started to go. I looked right, saw that I just had room to go too. I accelerated and found that the Allegro had decided to stop. CRUNCH. I shortened the Allegro by about 18 inches. Clearly my fault (even if it is one of the easiest mistakes to make).
Damage to my car (Peugeot 205GTi 1.9)? Zero. Nadda. Nothing. Not a dent, scratch, crack or even a broken number plate.
I think the company car bod at my old place thought I had some scheme going because I must have written the Allegro off.
OP - Not my field and so no legal advice here.
If you do chose not to go down the legal route I (in your shoes) would still be inclined to write to the old company disputing their decision, putting your defence to them in full (heavy on the "in the best interests of the company and thanked for it on bosses return") and, because it's how I roll, pointing out just how petty, spiteful and unprofessional it has made the company look (don't add the 'to who', as with horror movies what people 'think' is often worse than what they can see and know!)
Then add that, whilst you consider that you would have valid grounds for appeal, and, if that were unsuccessful given the company's track record on this matter thus far, would strongly consider taking matters further (again do not elucidate), you believe that it would be of little benefit to either party. As such, and rather than cause further issues for either party, you will not be appealing their questionable conduct in relation to this whole sorry situation and suggest that both parties would be well advised to put this down to experience and move forward separately.
Some might well suggest to leave it be totally or to tone it down. Your call. My personal feelings would be that I would want to be able to show why I did not appeal the decision at the time and to be able to produce a copy of the letter to them by way of 'proving' it if you feel the need. It would also show that you have thought the situation through.
As said you are your own man and this is not legal advice, just my take on where I would be happy to leave matters before I stood away.
If you do chose not to go down the legal route I (in your shoes) would still be inclined to write to the old company disputing their decision, putting your defence to them in full (heavy on the "in the best interests of the company and thanked for it on bosses return") and, because it's how I roll, pointing out just how petty, spiteful and unprofessional it has made the company look (don't add the 'to who', as with horror movies what people 'think' is often worse than what they can see and know!)
Then add that, whilst you consider that you would have valid grounds for appeal, and, if that were unsuccessful given the company's track record on this matter thus far, would strongly consider taking matters further (again do not elucidate), you believe that it would be of little benefit to either party. As such, and rather than cause further issues for either party, you will not be appealing their questionable conduct in relation to this whole sorry situation and suggest that both parties would be well advised to put this down to experience and move forward separately.
Some might well suggest to leave it be totally or to tone it down. Your call. My personal feelings would be that I would want to be able to show why I did not appeal the decision at the time and to be able to produce a copy of the letter to them by way of 'proving' it if you feel the need. It would also show that you have thought the situation through.
As said you are your own man and this is not legal advice, just my take on where I would be happy to leave matters before I stood away.
Sir Fergie said:
Sheepshanks said:
Sir Fergie said:
Sharp thinking employee who reports to manager - realises that he or she has 2 options to address mistake - breach authorisation limit set by company by 1000 pounds - or the company loses a 500 million contract.
It strikes me as unlikely (being polite) that a £500M contact could be lost due to £1000.Sir Fergie said:
Your scenario about the company cars being crashed in the notice period - seems even more unlikely tbh.
AstonZagato said:
I did this once
It was a genuine accident.
I was actually driving the car back to return it.
It was a genuine accident.
I was actually driving the car back to return it.
Sheepshanks said:
Sir Fergie said:
Sheepshanks said:
Sir Fergie said:
Sharp thinking employee who reports to manager - realises that he or she has 2 options to address mistake - breach authorisation limit set by company by 1000 pounds - or the company loses a 500 million contract.
It strikes me as unlikely (being polite) that a £500M contact could be lost due to £1000.Sir Fergie said:
Your scenario about the company cars being crashed in the notice period - seems even more unlikely tbh.
AstonZagato said:
I did this once
It was a genuine accident.
I was actually driving the car back to return it.
It was a genuine accident.
I was actually driving the car back to return it.
apologies 
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff