12 Month Warning Based on 'Probability Of Human Error'
Discussion
Anyone on here deal with employment law?
My mrs works for an airline, she always follows procedure for cashing up and has evidence that she has done in this case but in this 1 instance, money is missing from a cash bag which was sealed and signed over the seal by herself and her colleague at the end of this 1 flight complete with an EPOS receipt which shows the total and denominations of coins/notes. The airline is now saying that only coins were in the bag, no notes but they are unable to show her CCTV evidence of the bag being opened/counted by the bank (she has an email which says that the bank has CCTV in the counting area). Also, a copy of a document thats been sent to her has had parts tip-ex'd out with extra writing added & they were unable to provide the original.
After a disciplinary hearing, she has received a 12 month written warning (her 1st ever warning in 8 years) based on the 'probability of human error' that she hasn't followed procedure - this doesn't explain where & what happened to the money which surely is the real issue?
Can they issue a written warning based on the 'probability' of something? Isn't this the same as guessing or assuming?
My mrs works for an airline, she always follows procedure for cashing up and has evidence that she has done in this case but in this 1 instance, money is missing from a cash bag which was sealed and signed over the seal by herself and her colleague at the end of this 1 flight complete with an EPOS receipt which shows the total and denominations of coins/notes. The airline is now saying that only coins were in the bag, no notes but they are unable to show her CCTV evidence of the bag being opened/counted by the bank (she has an email which says that the bank has CCTV in the counting area). Also, a copy of a document thats been sent to her has had parts tip-ex'd out with extra writing added & they were unable to provide the original.
After a disciplinary hearing, she has received a 12 month written warning (her 1st ever warning in 8 years) based on the 'probability of human error' that she hasn't followed procedure - this doesn't explain where & what happened to the money which surely is the real issue?
Can they issue a written warning based on the 'probability' of something? Isn't this the same as guessing or assuming?
There is a text book case that goes back many years, certainly pre 2000, and I think relates to a theft or missing property/cash from a hotel (Thistle?) or similar establishment. In that case disciplinary action was taken against a group of employees, there was no admission, and no employee willing to state who had committed the offence. Disciplinary action was taken against all of them and found to be fair. I am sure one of the practising people can refresh the details of this case.
They said they couldn't get the CCTV during the hearing yesterday & even if they could, it would be too grainy but surely you'd still be able to tell if a bag had notes in and not just coins.
The other person who also had the same disciplinary was given the same outcome.
My Mrs questioned that the people that collect the cash from the safe could have taken the money etc etc - they said this wouldn't be possible as they had a robust system in place to watch over them when collecting the cash, my mrs then presented them with printed pics taken on her phone of nobody watching over them emptying the safe - the meeting was then adjurned for an hour.
The other person who also had the same disciplinary was given the same outcome.
My Mrs questioned that the people that collect the cash from the safe could have taken the money etc etc - they said this wouldn't be possible as they had a robust system in place to watch over them when collecting the cash, my mrs then presented them with printed pics taken on her phone of nobody watching over them emptying the safe - the meeting was then adjurned for an hour.
edc said:
There is a text book case that goes back many years, certainly pre 2000, and I think relates to a theft or missing property/cash from a hotel (Thistle?) or similar establishment. In that case disciplinary action was taken against a group of employees, there was no admission, and no employee willing to state who had committed the offence. Disciplinary action was taken against all of them and found to be fair. I am sure one of the practising people can refresh the details of this case.
They cant prove or show where the money is or at what stage it went missing, not the cash bag itself or the CCTV so looks like its just being pinned on the cabin crew.Edited by Sea Demon on Thursday 28th August 15:41
Sea Demon said:
They cant prove or show where the money is or at what stage it went missing, not the cash bag itself or the CCTV so looks like its just being pinned on the cabin crew.
To some extent that does not matter. The tests for an employment case are not the same as for a criminal case. Edited by Sea Demon on Thursday 28th August 15:41
Breadvan72 said:
An employer can act on a reasonable belief based on a reasonable investigation. The employer does not have to prove that the misconduct alleged definitely occurred.
G - sounds fair enough on the face of it but.... and you knew that was coming didn't you? It would seem to me that this is grossly unfair. The money could easily have been misappropriated by a member of bank staff (my wife is an ex Barclays first cashier and tells me tales of staff being caught stealing and other cases of cash going missing and despite investigation it never being found nor any suspects identified).The fact that the 2 staff members have been disciplined for what is in effect unproven dishonesty is surely a slur on their integrity and perhaps future alternative employability. Is this not some form of libel/defamation?
If money went missing from your chambers/on the way to the bank in similar circumstances I'd suggest you would be livid if you were to be disciplined in the same manner as this with no proof/evidence against you.
Just my twopenneth
Edited by elanfan on Friday 29th August 01:54
A large computer manufacturers in Scotland. A box of memory SIMMS disappeared from a storage carousel machine inside a high security area of the factory. The entire shift was sacked, including the supervisors. The sackings were upheld by employment tribunals.
Two months later a team turned up to service all of the carousels, the box of SIMMS was found stuck in the cladding of the machine.
Two months later a team turned up to service all of the carousels, the box of SIMMS was found stuck in the cladding of the machine.
elanfan, I am self employed. As for the case in point, how can you be so firm in your view without seeing all the evidence that the employer had? The employer's position may or may not be unfair, but I wouldn't express a view on that on the present limited information.
The OP's wife's only remedy is to appeal or raise a grievance internally, or to leave the job. Unfair disciplinary action could give rise to a constructive dismissal claim, but whether it would do so would here be heavily fact sensitive.
The OP's wife's only remedy is to appeal or raise a grievance internally, or to leave the job. Unfair disciplinary action could give rise to a constructive dismissal claim, but whether it would do so would here be heavily fact sensitive.
Have to say that were I in the situation of the OP's wife and knew that I was 100% not to blame I would be apoplectic with impotent rage at this.
Impotent because there is, in practical real world terms, bugger all that they can do about it. It's not serious enough for someone in the OP's wife's position to gamble a career over, yet it is the sort of accusation that only the implications of my actions would stop me from offering someone outside over (and I'm not the sort that gets physically aggressive unless in immediate fear of my personal safety or that of those around me in my care.)
In addition to this, again in the real world not the world of law, you know that it is the sort of thing that crops up in the telephone discussion that accompanies the dates only written reference...
Impotent because there is, in practical real world terms, bugger all that they can do about it. It's not serious enough for someone in the OP's wife's position to gamble a career over, yet it is the sort of accusation that only the implications of my actions would stop me from offering someone outside over (and I'm not the sort that gets physically aggressive unless in immediate fear of my personal safety or that of those around me in my care.)
In addition to this, again in the real world not the world of law, you know that it is the sort of thing that crops up in the telephone discussion that accompanies the dates only written reference...
Edited by Rude-boy on Friday 29th August 12:20
karona said:
A large computer manufacturers in Scotland. A box of memory SIMMS disappeared from a storage carousel machine inside a high security area of the factory. The entire shift was sacked, including the supervisors. The sackings were upheld by employment tribunals.
Two months later a team turned up to service all of the carousels, the box of SIMMS was found stuck in the cladding of the machine.
Is/was it possible to sue the dumbass employer for gross stupidity and jumping to conclusions ?Two months later a team turned up to service all of the carousels, the box of SIMMS was found stuck in the cladding of the machine.
elanfan said:
...
The fact that the 2 staff members have been disciplined for what is in effect unproven dishonesty is surely a slur on their integrity and perhaps future alternative employability. Is this not some form of libel/defamation?
...
No. The employer appears to have formed the view that there was a mistake in operating the procedure, not that there was dishonesty. In any event, the publication of the decision occurred in a context that attracts qualified privilege.The fact that the 2 staff members have been disciplined for what is in effect unproven dishonesty is surely a slur on their integrity and perhaps future alternative employability. Is this not some form of libel/defamation?
...
OP, in answer to your first question, yes they can, if it is reasonable in the circumstances. The answer to the second is, not necessarily.
The allegation here is a failure to follow cash handling procedures. It is not a question of integrity.
The following questions are relevant to whether or not the employer has acted reasonably. She might want to think about them when constructing her appeal.
1) Was the investigation appropriate for the allegation? It is unlikely that an investigation into a failure to follow cash handling procedures needs to be as thorough as an investigation into an allegation of theft.
2) Was it reasonable not to adjourn the disciplinary hearing in order to make further enquiries into the CCTV evidence?
3) If the answer is yes to the above, was it reasonable to infer from the facts that the probable cause of the money going missing was a mistake in cash handling procedures by Mrs OP and her colleague rather than some other cause?
4) Was Mrs OP aware that cash handling failures that result in money going missing might result in a written warning?
It is quite possible that the only realistic course of action Mrs OP has is to appeal the decision and make it clear, if that is the case, that the procedures were followed.
And then hope it doesn't happen again in the next 12 months.
The allegation here is a failure to follow cash handling procedures. It is not a question of integrity.
The following questions are relevant to whether or not the employer has acted reasonably. She might want to think about them when constructing her appeal.
1) Was the investigation appropriate for the allegation? It is unlikely that an investigation into a failure to follow cash handling procedures needs to be as thorough as an investigation into an allegation of theft.
2) Was it reasonable not to adjourn the disciplinary hearing in order to make further enquiries into the CCTV evidence?
3) If the answer is yes to the above, was it reasonable to infer from the facts that the probable cause of the money going missing was a mistake in cash handling procedures by Mrs OP and her colleague rather than some other cause?
4) Was Mrs OP aware that cash handling failures that result in money going missing might result in a written warning?
It is quite possible that the only realistic course of action Mrs OP has is to appeal the decision and make it clear, if that is the case, that the procedures were followed.
And then hope it doesn't happen again in the next 12 months.
Breadvan72 said:
elanfan said:
...
The fact that the 2 staff members have been disciplined for what is in effect unproven dishonesty is surely a slur on their integrity and perhaps future alternative employability. Is this not some form of libel/defamation?
...
No. The employer appears to have formed the view that there was a mistake in operating the procedure, not that there was dishonesty. In any event, the publication of the decision occurred in a context that attracts qualified privilege.The fact that the 2 staff members have been disciplined for what is in effect unproven dishonesty is surely a slur on their integrity and perhaps future alternative employability. Is this not some form of libel/defamation?
...
what 'stage' of warning was made - untless it wasa final warning then there is little impact except perhaps in terms of 'points' for promotions / changing rotas or if redeployments were proposed.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff