Probation period extended after I discovered a theft

[flixer]

Long time lurker, seldom poster, name changed for obvious reasons... I really need some hand holding tonight.

I took a finance role 3 months ago. As part of my role, I found out that a staff member took the company card while out on a post-run and made an unauthorised purchase, a gift to a leaving member of staff. This was only picked up when I saw the bank statements. It was a director who had given her the card.

I informed the manager discretely. However, my interaction with said member of staff specially when dealing with finance things became a little strained.

Today I had my probation meeting... and my probation was extended on basis on my interaction with her!

I don't even have words... Manager said he cannot have conflict within the team....

It takes a while to get a feel for a company and how they operate, for all she knew this company is a stickler for credit card policies, even for "only a leaving gift".

Which is why it's important to present it, as neutral as possible.

I agree with pp. Not authorised doesnt mean theft. It may mean there was no written authorisation. Or the director, had discusses this days before with the woman and the woman saw something that as ideal while she was out.

From the way the OP is written she has decided it wasnt authorised and done without permission, when she saw the transaction. Before the investigation. But actually, at that point, she shoukdnt have been making a judgment call as she would have not known the circumstances at that point.

It was an anomaly. Thats all she knew at that point

At first I was a bit but after reading your update, you did nothing wrong. I'd be looking to get out ASAP, these people aren't going to make it easy for you to do your job apparently!

@JenniferM1989 said

In the smaller companies I've worked for various staff members can purchase things like equipment, presents for staff, etc by just saying to a director/manager I'm going to purchase x for y purposes. There is no way the director/manager ever remembers the request.

It is actually how you handled it OP. Instead of complaining about it being unauthorised you should have found out from the staff member themselves whether they are the person who tends to buy all leaving presents and birthday cards in the company, and asked for the receipts at the time of purchase going forward. Then spoke to their manager/director on how these things are authorised by them going forward.

@ColaFreezePop she flagged a payment which she hadn't been told was authorised, presumably as per company policy.

OP I don't know how or why there is now conflict, but I'd question the integrity of your company's finance dept and decide whether it's worth risking your job for.
I'd probably start looking for a job elsewhere.

Today 07:47 steppemum

I am not sure why the OP is getting such a hard time.
She has made it very clear that she flagged up something in the bank records.

I’ve worked in both corporations and small companies. There are different ways to approach issues. It appears the OP didn’t adapt to the environment she is in and it has caused bad feelings. It shows a lack of experience, a possible lack of people skills and a lack of adaptability which would go unnoticed in a large company.

Trade union or a Acas for advice?

she flagged a payment which she hadn't been told was authorised, presumably as per company policy

Thata the issue.

Assuming that because the OP hadnt been told it was authorised, that it definitely wasnt.

Its veet important that you go into these situations, without assigning blame or guilt. Because thata not her job. Her job is to flag anomalies. Not judge the circumstances.

You've been in the job 3 months. Were you so confident of where everyone's loyalties and allegiances lie to go above her head and grass her up before approaching her directly?

But in a small company, I want my finance officer to discretely check things with me - her manager, and everyone else bar the CEO's senior - if she's uncertain about something.

People further down the chain have got procedure wrong for a few years. I'm there to provide her with support she can't accurately get from other people. It's not 'escalating' it.

However I do get a vibe from the OP that this would have been more like a grassing than a discrete check!

If it was normal procedure the gift buyer would have handed in/submitted the receipt for the gift the same time they did the one for the stamps
OP doesn't say that a receipt wasn't submitted. She said she flagged it when cross-referencing bank statements. Which could mean, someone else processed the receipts earlier or that OP did see the receipt but only questioned authorisation when she saw it on the bank statement.

I do wish people would read the updates/ full thread. The purchase was NOT agreed or authorised.

It's one of those threads where some posters take umbrage at something written in the first post and they want to teach the OP a lesson. Even if the OP was in the right. (In this case there's not enough information to know all that's gone on.)

The other staff member is still there. That isn't what happens if someone is found guilty of 'theft'.

@Hesafriendfromwork yeah I've re-read and OP informed the manager that it was unauthorised rather than querying whether it was, you're right.

It looks like the OP has identified a breach of the standing financial instructions which is probably an accepted custom practice within the team or organisation. I would assume that it’s fairly standard for the card to be used to buy leaving presents rather than someone pitching up with an envelope of coins. The management accepted the alert and looked into it. But there is obviously no theft. It is probably also the case that the person who made the purchase acted in good faith even though it was against the rules.

The OP accepts that the incident with the card isn’t the issue. It is how she behaved towards the person who was accused. That’s the issue. At the end of the day, if finance people called everyone inadvertently breaching a SFi a thief there would be chaos and a lot of ill feeling. I’m not saying the OP did, but that is how she thinks of the person. If that came out in the interaction it would be a problem.

Anyone working in a governance role will encounter minor and serious breaches. It is incumbent on them to deal with it professionally. Report it yes, but don’t bring accusations or ill will into the work environment because you know about it.

I think people are missing the point because of the way the op phrased it.

The issue is not the card use. Which could well be a legit use, simply she should have got authority prior to purchasing. That's not the issue or why they extended probation.

The issue is how the op treated the woman afterwards. She has not expanded on this past it became strained, but that's the issue the company have, and that's why her probation has been extended.

It's nothing to do with the card usage, which management said they would deal with. It's the ops interactions with the woman afterwards that's caused them concern.

The issue is how the op treated the woman afterwards.

We don't have any information about the OP's treatment of the woman afterwards. In that absence let's go down the tried and tested route of adding "facts" to cast the OP in a bad light.

We don't have any information about the OP's treatment of the woman afterwards. In that absence let's go down the tried and tested route of adding "facts" to cast the OP in a bad light.*

Her manager has made it clear that's their issue. Their issue isnt that she reported a theft. They have said their issue is the strained atmosphere.

They are laying at least part of the blame at the ops feet. The OP still thinks the issue is reporting the incident. That maybe what's cause the issue between her and the woman. But that's not the problem.

And part of that problem, is possibly that OP assumed theft without any proof.

Nauticant. She specifically states in her op that her probation was extended due to her interactions with this woman. Seriously read the thread before commenting and correcting people. You just look a bit silly otherwise.

You are still on probation and to be honest they probably think of you now as an over-eager trouble maker.
I'd be back job hunting.

She’s certainly not over eager to update this thread.

@Butchyrestingface

I should imagine she is at work?

So would I.

I think you need to ask for clarity. Humbly ask: I know I must have handled that situation badly, or my probation wouldn't have been extended. However I feel I need a better understanding of what went wrong so that I don't make another similar mistake in future. I am really keen to learn everything I need to know while I am in my Probation.

A previous place of work of mine, there was a Queen Bee of the office, let's call her "Stephanie" and doing something like this would have been totally in character for her. She was also the alpha for the department for all things not directly connected with the actual chain of command - so yes the Director was technically in charge but she decided where we would go for Christmas lunch, when we would have a departmental drinks or social night, and would organise birthday cards etc. She also traded in favours around the rest of the business so if you needed the cooperation of multiple departments to make something work, step #1 was to get Stephanie on-side as your project would succeed or fail according to what she said over lunch to her mate in the other department. One of the first things newbies learned when joining the department was that rule #1 is, don't get in Stephanie's bad books. Just don't. It's a bigger rule than petty little things like don't embezzle your expenses and don't kill the customers.

I rather suspect that your chief crime was to annoy Stephanie. Stephanie may not have done the transaction herself but may have told that person to do it. If this is what was happening, their response to your request for more feedback will be that you didn't do anything wrong exactly but your lack of diplomacy and tact while doing it has given them concerns about how well you fit into the general office culture.

My advice, if Stephanie is in control there to the extent that annoying her can affect your probation, is that it will be a toxic working environment and you may want to re-open your job hunting folder.

Absolutely not a good enough reason 'don't want conflict'.

I would be making an appointment with HR.

On a side note what did the person who made the unauthorised transaction think would happen when it was noticed on the credit card? Had she been allowed to purchase farewell gifts for staff before? I have held a company credit card a few times and we had to justify every spend, rightly so. We also were allowed to buy farewell gifts but I was the team administrator so that was part of my role

Absolutely not a good enough reason 'don't want conflict'.

Yes it is. Especially if they feel OP has contributed to that. By either presenting it as theft or, perhaps, blame some of the strained atmosphere on her.

Ops job is a difficult one and one that needs to navigated without her placing blame on anyone.

Not wishing conflict is a very very valid reason. If the op contributed to that conflict. And they clearly think she did.

The ops role is financial. Her place is not to judge. Or show feelings either way. That's management role.

If the woman was horrible to her, she should have managed it professionally and escalated to management if there was an issue.

What her management have said is the way she's handled it with the woman, her interactions, are not acceptable to them. If they were they wouldn't have extended her probabtion

As said, this is nothing to do with the card, it's everything to do with how the op behaved with the woman after.