Employer deducting wages because of a mistake
Discussion
Aphex said:
£50 for a life lesson isn't the worst thing in the world
Yes, but it's the employer who needs to be subject to it.Is there a time limit on addressing this stuff? Can she make sure it's properly documented, preferably with something in writing from them saying they're doing this, and then continue to be sweetness and light until she leaves the job, taking them to task about it then?
InitialDave said:
Aphex said:
£50 for a life lesson isn't the worst thing in the world
Yes, but it's the employer who needs to be subject to it.Is there a time limit on addressing this stuff? Can she make sure it's properly documented, preferably with something in writing from them saying they're doing this, and then continue to be sweetness and light until she leaves the job, taking them to task about it then?
It makes me angry that the employer looks like getting away with doing this to a young, inexperienced employee.
If she was my daughter I’d be advising her to tell them to pay her money to date then find another job.
She's learnt a lesson of sorts maybe. Maybe these notes were so obviously fake that she 'should have known better', but what is she then meant to do? Refuse the transaction? Ask for alternative payment? Report the customer? And what if next time the fake notes are much better rather than obviously like monopoly money? This is why there should be processed and procedures for handling these things. The onus should be on the business to put measures in place to protect the business by for employees to make up for a lack of business process.
zetec said:
She said she has had no specific training on fake money, a pen is supplied and used but it was ineffective. The notes that were taken, were in her words ‘like Monopoly money, I can’t believe I have been so stupid’.
Theres something not quite ringing true here. She used the pen but it was ineffective? A note checker pen would not be ineffective unless it was empty. This also then makes me question if she had enough time to run the pen over she would’ve looked at the notes whilst doing this and would’ve spotted obviously fake money, in your words Monopoly money.
Then the fact you have said there were two of them and they were really chatty.
I’m starting to think this was a clever set up scam, hand over two genuine £50 notes knowing a £50 would get checked. Once the checks done, distract her with a question whilst the other person switches the notes.
Obviously they’ve had to wait until there is only one staff member on, which you advise they did as the other member had gone on a break.
This I’d say was a well set up scam so theft, would get employer deduct the money from her salary if someone pulled a knife on her?
Alternatively the £50s were switched out before counting and another employee is on the fiddle.
If it were me, I'd be finding another job.
There might be some truth in some of the hypothesis of a scam... but even if it was a simple error,
the correct response for the company is
1. to review company cash handling policies with her, and go through job performance processes if she screws up again
2. implement and put in place the policy and resources to ensure the booth never has only a single employee in it.
There might be some truth in some of the hypothesis of a scam... but even if it was a simple error,
the correct response for the company is
1. to review company cash handling policies with her, and go through job performance processes if she screws up again
2. implement and put in place the policy and resources to ensure the booth never has only a single employee in it.
esxste said:
If it were me, I'd be finding another job.
There might be some truth in some of the hypothesis of a scam... but even if it was a simple error,
the correct response for the company is
1. to review company cash handling policies with her, and go through job performance processes if she screws up again
2. implement and put in place the policy and resources to ensure the booth never has only a single employee in it.
I suspect given the small margins theatres work with 2 is impossible. They just won't have the numbers of staff to do it. It's not an issue if staff are trained and they have the correct equipment anyway.There might be some truth in some of the hypothesis of a scam... but even if it was a simple error,
the correct response for the company is
1. to review company cash handling policies with her, and go through job performance processes if she screws up again
2. implement and put in place the policy and resources to ensure the booth never has only a single employee in it.
I believe they can only do this if the contract allows it but there is another consideration, that is minimum wage. The deduction may take her below the national minimum wage for the pay reference period and therefore is a breach.
I think they are taking the piss and her best course would be to call ACAS on 0300 123 1100, gotta be worth a chat with them
I think they are taking the piss and her best course would be to call ACAS on 0300 123 1100, gotta be worth a chat with them
The best comment was right back up the top, was this procedure in her contract of employment, was sufficient training given and recorded that it happened. As much as it is a life lesson there are also very good laws of employment in the UK that any company needs to follow. In any dispute you should always go straight to your contract of employment first off and see if the contract you signed to work there contains an agreement to take this action.
The deduction was probably unlawful and, as noted above, it reflects very poorly on the ethical standards of the employer. The employee could if she wished claim in respect of an unlawful deduction up to three months after leaving the job.
Is this kiosk run by a contractor, or by the company (it may be a trust or foundation) that operates the theatre? If the latter, a letter to the CEO or governing body might have some impact. If a contractor, again a letter to the CEO of the theatre itself might have effect. Is this really how a world famous cultural heritage centre wishes a theatre-struck young employee working as part of its front of house set-up to be treated?
Is this kiosk run by a contractor, or by the company (it may be a trust or foundation) that operates the theatre? If the latter, a letter to the CEO or governing body might have some impact. If a contractor, again a letter to the CEO of the theatre itself might have effect. Is this really how a world famous cultural heritage centre wishes a theatre-struck young employee working as part of its front of house set-up to be treated?
That is not in issue. What is in issue is whether the employer can make the deduction from what are probably minimum wages. Wage protection since the Truck Acts (now contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996) is directed at protecting employees against the sort of abusive conduct that OP's daughter has been subjected to by a frankly s
tty employer.
tty employer. James_B said:
bad company said:
I wonder if the theatre know full well that they can’t deduct the money and just trying it on.
They cannot insist, but they can ask and sack her immediately if she declines to accept their suggestion.Not nice behaviour, but completely legal.
Dismissal for assertion of the statutory right not to have unlawful deductions from wages is automatically unfair, and no qualifying period of service is required for the making of such a claim.
Breadvan72 said:
James_B said:
bad company said:
I wonder if the theatre know full well that they can’t deduct the money and just trying it on.
They cannot insist, but they can ask and sack her immediately if she declines to accept their suggestion.Not nice behaviour, but completely legal.
Dismissal for assertion of the statutory right not to have unlawful deductions from wages is automatically unfair, and no qualifying period of service is required for the making of such a claim.
Op, please please ask your daughter to fight this.
Breadvan72 said:
You are incorrect.
Dismissal for assertion of the statutory right not to have unlawful deductions from wages is automatically unfair, and no qualifying period of service is required for the making of such a claim.
No, I am not incorrect. They can sack her immediately for hair colour, choice of shirt, or having an annoying voice.Dismissal for assertion of the statutory right not to have unlawful deductions from wages is automatically unfair, and no qualifying period of service is required for the making of such a claim.
As one of your better informed colleagues will hopefully explain to you, she can be let go for any reason or none except for the protected characteristics.
Why would you possibly think that they would list the wages as the reason? I know that you assume that everyone else is stupid, but even you must understand that it is unlikely that they pick an it,égal reason to dismiss.
James_B said:
Breadvan72 said:
You are incorrect.
Dismissal for assertion of the statutory right not to have unlawful deductions from wages is automatically unfair, and no qualifying period of service is required for the making of such a claim.
No, I am not incorrect. They can sack her immediately for hair colour, choice of shirt, or having an annoying voice.Dismissal for assertion of the statutory right not to have unlawful deductions from wages is automatically unfair, and no qualifying period of service is required for the making of such a claim.
As one of your better informed colleagues will hopefully explain to you, she can be let go for any reason or none except for the protected characteristics.
Why would you possibly think that they would list the wages as the reason? I know that you assume that everyone else is stupid, but even you must understand that it is unlikely that they pick an it,égal reason to dismiss.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff