Called in for disciplinary hearing on gross negligence charge

[Lurkerlot]

Hi first time poster here,

I had a small part in a process that caused our company to lose a substantial amount of money. Essential we were asked to pay a company who subsequently went out of business. Other departments knew they were going out of business, but did not inform the payments team. Needless to say numerous people have been out in the spotlight for this error.

After some investigatory interviews I’ve been presented with witness statements, and part of that evidence is a summary of processes that should have been followed, but we don’t follow those processes, and nor are they noted down anywhere as a procedure to follow. If you like they’ve closed the gate after the horse has bolted. And I think they are using that As evidence after the fact.

I’ve been accused of costing the company a loss of a substantial amount of money under the title failure to follow Company Payment Validation process. However, there is no validation process that sits within my role, all I do is load the payments onto the bank for authorisation, all the cross checking is meant to happen prior to it reaching me, i simply take the print outs and load the value of the payment at the bank, which is then authorised by someone else.

I know I have a strong rebuttal argument, and also a witness who agrees that the process does not exist, and the checking does not sit within my role.

As far as I can tell a new starter has investigated the procedure from start to end, and has written up processes according to her old company, this evidence amounts to a change in our current procedure.

Can anyone advise me how I can be accused of not following a process that does not exist? And how successful they will be at the hearing?

[greathat]

Are you in a union? If you are get into them ASAP

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

All you can do is say "my role is to do X and Y. On that day I did X and Y. At no point have I been instructed or given responsibility for W, as that is handled prior to me carrying out X and Y".

Dig out a copy of your job description and find the policies and procedures which do exist, rather than the ones that have been written after the fact.

Seems odd to me though that the payment shouldn't have gone through if it was for goods and services already provided. Or was it in advance of this which they are not delivering?

[SpoonBlender]

They'll need to provide documentary evidence that you were trained in the (nonexistant at the time) procedure for CPV, else it's a failure on their part in not training you.

[BloodyWorried]

Each company I’ve worked for I’ve had to sign the procedures and policies to say I’ve read, understand and comply. Is this standard for you? If so, ask for the evidence of the above especially if they’ve changed it and are going to claim you knew. Also policies have to be dated and reviewed - with amendments publicised and again signed for. They should provide evidence against you rather than make you defend nothing / incriminate yourself (as it were).

[Lurkerlot]

Thank you everyone, yes Bernadette is was an advance deposit for services.

No training given Spoonblender.

We have no standard procedures and policies that I have read or signed. We just learn this, and that becomes the normal practice.

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Well surely the fault lies with whoever signed off the purchase and passed it to you for payment. Who was the budget holder/signatory for that bill?

[DontPressSendTooSoon]

Do you have more than 2 years service OP?

It sounds like they may be scapegoating you, horrible situation and there's not a lot you can do to save your skin if that is the case.

If you have less than 2 years and they want to do a kangaroo court hearing and sack you, you won't have a lot of come back. Over 2 years and you may be able to claim unfair dismissal if you can show they invented this procedure after the incident.

[prh47bridge]

You can't stop them from accusing you of failing to follow a process that didn't exist. No-one can predict the outcome of your disciplinary hearing. If it is fair and they accept the process didn't exist you will be in the clear. If they are looking for a scapegoat you may be sacked.

Provided you have been with them for at least 2 years you will be able to claim unfair dismissal if you are sacked. To win you will need to show the employment tribunal that the person making the decision could not reasonably believe that there was a procedure in place that you were supposed to follow. Make sure you keep the evidence.

It may be that they will offer you a settlement agreement. In essence, that means you will sign a legal agreement giving up the right to take them to tribunal in return for which they will pay you a sum of money - less than you would win if a tribunal claim was successful but more than redundancy pay. If they go down that path you will need advice from an employment lawyer.

[ScreamingValenta]

In the after-the-fact process with which you've been presented, what exactly are they saying you should have done but didn't?

[Lurkerlot]

They’re accusing me of failure to follow the company validation process. But it does not sit with me, it sits with sales, they quote for jobs/sales based on something made up of big component parts bought in from other suppliers. We do not know what supplier they use, they simply quote for the sale, by picking components from registered suppliers, and they out the costs to pay. For some jobs we need to pay for the components up front. We paid as per the prepayment (and usual) policy.

[EggysMom]

But the crux surely is, you processed the payment because you were instructed to process the payment and because nobody had given you anything to cause you to question that payment - no hint, no instruction, no process that includes double-checking.

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Did you have a document/invoice/pro forma given to you to pay? Had anybody signed it?

[Lurkerlot]

H Bernadette, it came it electronically, digitally signed, with a follow up phone call requesting to pay that supplier.

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Ok. So the person who signed it is 100% responsible for the payment being made. Their approval is all you need.

Maybe they are investigating more than just you? Maybe everyone in the chain is going through this?

[Apolloanddaphne]

I suspect they are interviewing every person who had a part in the process to see where the process fell down. You just need to be honest about your part in the process and about what training you did or didn't receive.