Disciplinary Investigations
Discussion
This sounds horrendous, I'm sure many of us put in expenses and often the system baulks certain types of expenses when you've lost receipts or need to part claim, I'd authorise my teams expenses as well but then they go through an approval process, any changes to an expense policy has to be clearly communicated and ratified, to try and catch you out via this uncommunicated change seems like a witch hunt and surely cannot stand, is your manager going to support you? I know would if I were them.
Good luck and yes I'd get some legal advice as this sounds wrong, I was once the subject of a witch hunt/fishing expedition at work but when you know you've done nothing wrong it's best to get on the front foot and push back as hard as you can, they will fold.
BandOfBrothers said:
No, fraud is decided by a court, not "one man's" opinion.
From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
if an Employer thinks somebody's committing "fraud" they'll sack or discipline them. They don't need to take it to Court.From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
We've had somebody try to take us to Employment Tribunal after they were sacked for incorrectly claiming expenses. It wasn't a long hearing.
BandOfBrothers said:
No, fraud is decided by a court, not "one man's" opinion.
From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
That may be right, but the company don't need to go to court to fire him if they think he's acted fraudulently. To paraphrase they only have to undertake a reasonable investigation and have reasonable grounds for believing he's guilty and then act within the realms you'd expect from a reasonable employer as an outcome.From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
Countdown said:
BandOfBrothers said:
No, fraud is decided by a court, not "one man's" opinion.
From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
if an Employer thinks somebody's committing "fraud" they'll sack or discipline them. They don't need to take it to Court.From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
We've had somebody try to take us to Employment Tribunal after they were sacked for incorrectly claiming expenses. It wasn't a long hearing.
Forester1965 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
No, fraud is decided by a court, not "one man's" opinion.
From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
That may be right, but the company don't need to go to court to fire him if they think he's acted fraudulently. To paraphrase they only have to undertake a reasonable investigation and have reasonable grounds for believing he's guilty and then act within the realms you'd expect from a reasonable employer as an outcome.From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
Forester1965 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
No, fraud is decided by a court, not "one man's" opinion.
From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
That may be right, but the company don't need to go to court to fire him if they think he's acted fraudulently. To paraphrase they only have to undertake a reasonable investigation and have reasonable grounds for believing he's guilty and then act within the realms you'd expect from a reasonable employer as an outcome.From what the OP explained, what he did was a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do.
No employer ever goes to court in order to fire someone. The question is can they stay out of court afterwards...
BandOfBrothers said:
It is right, and if he's acted reasonably, as he states he has, then it's not fraud, regardless of some hypothetical man's opinion.
It's whatever the employer says it is.If they come to that conclusion unreasonably the OP could go to tribunal and see if they agree. It doesn't need to go there first for them to fire him.
Based on what I've read on this thread, I guess either the employer will walk away from the disciplinary due to lack of grounds (can't prove he'd seen the updated policies), or he'll be offered a settlement to go away. If there's someone above who wants him out, the latter is probably the better option.
Forester1965 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
It is right, and if he's acted reasonably, as he states he has, then it's not fraud, regardless of some hypothetical man's opinion.
It's whatever the employer says it is.If they come to that conclusion unreasonably the OP could go to tribunal and see if they agree. It doesn't need to go there first for them to fire him.
Based on what I've read on this thread, I guess either the employer will walk away from the disciplinary due to lack of grounds (can't prove he'd seen the updated policies), or he'll be offered a settlement to go away. If there's someone above who wants him out, the latter is probably the better option.
One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
BandOfBrothers said:
No, it's not.
One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
They can fire him for whatever reason they choose. If he claims and it turns out to be unlawful the tribunal will compensate him (very unlikely to order reinstatement). But they get to decide what they want to believe and what they don't. One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
Forester1965 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
No, it's not.
One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
They can fire him for whatever reason they choose. If he claims and it turns out to be unlawful the tribunal will compensate him (very unlikely to order reinstatement). But they get to decide what they want to believe and what they don't. One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
king alien if they want, doesn't mean he is one.BandOfBrothers said:
Forester1965 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
It is right, and if he's acted reasonably, as he states he has, then it's not fraud, regardless of some hypothetical man's opinion.
It's whatever the employer says it is.If they come to that conclusion unreasonably the OP could go to tribunal and see if they agree. It doesn't need to go there first for them to fire him.
Based on what I've read on this thread, I guess either the employer will walk away from the disciplinary due to lack of grounds (can't prove he'd seen the updated policies), or he'll be offered a settlement to go away. If there's someone above who wants him out, the latter is probably the better option.
One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
The employee gets told what the Expenses Policy is, and if the Employer thinks that the Employee hasn't complied with it, they get sanctioned. A decent employer won't just jump to disciplinary, there will usually be a discussion or investigation, but it's not some kind of mutual agreement in terms of what is or isn't acceptable.
BandOfBrothers said:
Forester1965 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
No, it's not.
One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
They can fire him for whatever reason they choose. If he claims and it turns out to be unlawful the tribunal will compensate him (very unlikely to order reinstatement). But they get to decide what they want to believe and what they don't. One party to a contract doesn't get to dictate to the other whether an action is reasonable or within the contract.
king alien if they want, doesn't mean he is one.BMRed said:
Manager signs off my expenses, then to auditing before paying.
The conversation started with “why are you using a personal card and not a company?”. There is no requirement for a company card and know many who use a personal card.
As my job involves meeting customers I’m rarely in an office where they can track my work badge. A chunk of hotels were rejected last year, as they believed it was duplicated. I sent back bank statements, invoices and flight details showing it was new and separate.
Previously policy for accommodation booking was “internal booking optional” when the policy was changed silently it now says “internal booking, no exceptions”.
There has been zero communication to managers and employees regarding this change.
I think you have to make a call as to whether to be proactive or reactive. The conversation started with “why are you using a personal card and not a company?”. There is no requirement for a company card and know many who use a personal card.
As my job involves meeting customers I’m rarely in an office where they can track my work badge. A chunk of hotels were rejected last year, as they believed it was duplicated. I sent back bank statements, invoices and flight details showing it was new and separate.
Previously policy for accommodation booking was “internal booking optional” when the policy was changed silently it now says “internal booking, no exceptions”.
There has been zero communication to managers and employees regarding this change.
You could ask in writing for this new policy along with the evidence that it was communicated to you. It may be they simply updated an internal handbook for example.
You could lodge a formal grievance about this.
You could ask your manager to confirm his views....
It really depends on what outcome you want.... and how keen you are to continue in this role.
BMRed said:
Thanks all. Good news, case was dropped.
My manager backed me in the investigation. I received the good news in an email “no further action”. It’s been hell but I’m glad it’s over.
Now focus the next 6 months on finding somewhere else to work. Somewhere that doesn't behave like this towards employeesMy manager backed me in the investigation. I received the good news in an email “no further action”. It’s been hell but I’m glad it’s over.
Rustybanger said:
BMRed said:
Thanks all. Good news, case was dropped.
My manager backed me in the investigation. I received the good news in an email “no further action”. It’s been hell but I’m glad it’s over.
Now focus the next 6 months on finding somewhere else to work. Somewhere that doesn't behave like this towards employeesMy manager backed me in the investigation. I received the good news in an email “no further action”. It’s been hell but I’m glad it’s over.
You do not want to be continuing at this company.
Rustybanger said:
BMRed said:
Thanks all. Good news, case was dropped.
My manager backed me in the investigation. I received the good news in an email “no further action”. It’s been hell but I’m glad it’s over.
Now focus the next 6 months on finding somewhere else to work. Somewhere that doesn't behave like this towards employeesMy manager backed me in the investigation. I received the good news in an email “no further action”. It’s been hell but I’m glad it’s over.
A previous company was sold to a new owner. All staff TUPEd.
One by one all the managers were picked off. I was one of the last, but had to attend a disciplinary for allegedly fiddling my petrol.
Stupid idiots had got their maths wrong. They were adding the first fill up to work out the MPG over the month.
In the end, they started to make stuff up. I was due another meeting, but handed in my notice as I had got another job (but I didn't tell them that). I also mentioned to the MD's secretary I was taking legal advice on constructive dismissal, knowing this would get back. I was offered a severance sum which paid for a nice holiday to China and Hong Kong.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff