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....

J'accuse springs to mind.
They've probably extended your probationary period while they decide how to deal with you.
Be prepared and don't expect a pat on the back until they're saying goodbye.

OP I’ve no idea why you’re getting such a hard time on here and get it completely. The whole thing is weird IMO. You don’t suddenly decide to get a leaving present on the company credit card without clearing it with someone. More usually you have a collection. It’s your job to check what’s on the card and what else could you have done? Anna’s clearly upset at being challenged. I think I’d email HR and say you’re upset at this decision and wonder how you could have handled this differently and what they would have preferred you to have done. They’re blaming you for Anna’s feelings about her cock up because she’s been there longer.

What happened before you were hired? Was this job done properly before? The only time my expenses were ever picked up was when I was away for a few weeks with work and had to claim for lunch and dinner. I had £6 max for lunch and on the last day I was on the train home and the train was nearly out of food. I bought a grim egg roll for £1,99, crisps and a copy of Glamour magazine for £1. It was the last entry in a long expense claim and the amount on the receipt was so far below the the £6 I didn’t look at the receipt carefully enough and genuinely forgot I’d bought the magazine. I was mortified at my mistake but didn’t blame anyone else!

I think everyone is focusing on the wrong part - the incident with the credit card is a bit of a red herring; that's NOT why the OP's probation was extended.

my interaction with said member of staff specially when dealing with finance things became a little strained

my probation was extended on basis on my interaction with her

Manager said he cannot have conflict within the team

The probation has been extended because of ongoing hostility between the OP and Anna. OP what specifically has happened since?

Clearly Anna was given the credit card to get stuff organised but there's no protocol or proved in place and OP jumped on it metaphorically shouting THIEF
It's probably put shockwaves through management

The responses here are weird!

Companies hire internal auditng roles like the OP's specifically to flag up anomalies like this. Because weird systemic financial problems can arise from situations like "Oh Anna always uses the card, it's fine, don't upset her."

Anna was careless with the company card and got her fingers burnt. The fact that Anna freaked out and management scrambled to shield her is actually a red flag!

The only reasonable response from management would have been, "No Anna, no one is accusing you of anything. OP is doing her job. Be more careful with receipts and the card from now on".

Definitely leave OP.

The OP never once said "theft". She quite properly raised it with Anna and then management.

You all do realise that this is a normal thing to happen at work? I'm a manager and if I see something unusual on a receipt I bring it up and we work it out like adults.

The fact that Anna responded with a huge "are you accusing me of ThEFT " is a red flag. Very "lady doth protest too much".

Lol at the poster suggesting that the OP apologise to Anna.

@flixer sorry but can you clarify - did Anna guess it was you as you say in one post or when did you speak to Anna?

This must be worrying but please bear in mind that that nothing has really technically changed unless your contract says you get x after the probationary period. Employment law in this country now means you have very little comeback until you've employed 2 years.

Of course your thoughts on your boss may have but nothing else really.

Also bear in mind that you don't know what is / has happened to Anna. She could be under a final written warning for all you know. You don't need to. You did your job.

Ask your line manager for a clear written explanation of what the company feels needs to change and how they can support you to get there. The response will be telling and hopefully reassuring

I learnt a long time ago not to rock the boat at work. It isn't worth the hassle especially during the probation period.
The three wise monkeys is my motto, hear nothing, say nothing, see nothing.

The OP never once said "theft". She quite properly raised it with Anna and then management

OP said theft here. So clearly thinks its was and took the managers disbelief as confirmation that it was theft.

She said 'the manager confirmed it was theft' except the managers words did not say that.

If OP didntbpresenr it as theft, how would a manager even confirm that? The definition of confirm is establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed or suspected to be the case).

It seems op believed she had stolen.

If they wanted rid because she did her job too well, they would have just got rid. Instead they have told her the issue. Hee interactions with anna, which op admits is strained and that she is more cautious.

An internal auitor job is hard. You have to manage relationships as well as check on peoples actions. Which means everything has to be presented neutrally.

It appears op didnt do that. She is still focused on Anna's spending, rather than the real issue.

So now it's okay for OP to get unfairly penalised for doing her job because she internally believed that something was theft, as she was presenting it neutrally? Okay.

Either this thread has just attracted a lot of weirdos, or there's a lot more financial irregularity happening at UK companies and people are projecting their defensiveness.

So now it's okay for OP to get unfairly penalised for doing her job because she internally believed that something was theft, as she was presenting it neutrally? Okay.

She hasnt been unfairly penalised. She admits things between her and Anna are strained. She says she is more cautious around her. But wont elaborate. Since she hasnr come back or given detail, we cant say 100%, but it's not a massive leap to say that the reason for her extension, is likely factually.

And yes, if an auditor can not present their findings, without casting personal judgments of co workers, she isnt right for the role. That's a huge part of the role.

I audit the entire reporting for a company. It's a bloody difficult job but when you think someone is taking the piss, making it clear you think that, rather than just present the facts neutrally causes tension and then whenever you ask questions people start becoming guarded and dont trust you and dont want to work with you or answer queries.

And if it turned out I was jumping to conclusions and was wrong and that was causing issues, I would expect to be pulled on it.

Which is why my predecessor only lasted 3 months in the role. When I started I had to work hard and repairing those relationships.

Relationship management is a big part of the role, unless you are an external auditor. Who only comes in to do that. Even then, jumping to conclusions would mean they would be likely to use someone else.

It is a massive leap. The OP made it clear that she first spoke with Anna, then raised it discreetly with the manager. On what planet is that a "personal judgement"?

It sounds like Anna and her manager became massively defensive after the OP discreetly raised it. Of course she is "more cautious" as a result!

I had someone raise a concern about my receipts once. I had a defensive moment at first, but then I realised they were doing their job and I was more careful going forward. Because I'm normal and I work for a normal company.

It is a massive leap. The OP made it clear that she first spoke with Anna, then raised it discreetly with the manager. On what planet is that a "personal judgement"?

You can have a discreet converstation with a manager and still present it as theft. Discreet could mean she caught the manager away from the tram, so no one else heard.

It sounds like Anna and her manager became massively defensive after the OP discreetly raised it. Of course she is "more cautious" as a result!

OP didnt say that though. She didnt say the manager became massively defensive. That's a massive leap. She appears to agree things have been strained from both sides.

I had someone raise a concern about my receipts once. I had a defensive moment at first, but then I realised they were doing their job and I was more careful going forward. Because I'm normal and I work for a normal company.

And did that person present their findinf as theft? OP clearly did. The word 'confirm' means that she believed that was the case and the manager confirmed it.

Except the manager didnt confirm anything, op totally misread that comment too.

Ops probation has not be extended due to reporting it. Its been extended because of how she has handled it. The strain clearly comes from the personal judgment she has made of Anna.

Yes a person can have a discreet conversation and present it as theft.

Which the OP did not do. She has literally said that she never used the word theft. It's impossible to "present something as theft" whilst simultaneously not using the term.

In my situation, our auditor said there were unexplained items on my receipts. I could have chosen to say, "Ah - ha you haven't actually said theft but I'll decide to infer that and impute your personal judgements about me and create drama!"

But I didn't because I'm normal.

Which the OP did not do. She has literally said that she never used the word theft. It's impossible to "present something as theft" whilst simultaneously not using the term.

Dont be ridiculous. Of course you can heavily imply and even say it without using the word theft.

'I have looked into this and it definitely was not authorised and I believe the woman hasnt received the gift'

'I spoke to Anna, checked xyz. This purchase was definitely not authorised and I donr believe the gift is for a lady who already left'

'Why would Anna be making unauthorised purchases, for people who are unlikely to recieve them. This feels very underhand and dishonest to me'

What your suitor said did not imply dishonesty at all.

auditor

Literally inventing phrases and attributing them to the OP! Talk about a massive leap. That is actually hilarious.

You do realise that if you have to resort to that, you've kind of stepped all over your own point?

Think you are taking the piss now

I never said OP said those things. I was giving examples of how you can imply and say someone is a thief without using the word 'thief'.

This thread is EXACTLY why managing office workers is so hard. Its usually dull work, so a little bit of drama goes a very very long way. I do wish the OP would come back and explain the "strained relationship" bit. I think its quite clear that this is the problem, not the spending anomaly. The OP did her job, identified an anomaly, it was resolved, end of problem. But what happened next? What happened between the OP and Anna? The falling out is the reason for the probation extension, not the spending issue.

'probation period extended after I discovered a theft'

Ops title of thread would suggest that she is looking at it as a theft as opposed to something to be queried and if she has approached management with accusations of theft against a long serving colleague when she's only been there two minutes, I'm not surprised the relationship is strained.

Office politics.
Don't miss it one iota.
And that, OP is what it boils down to.
But you took a leap without learning first

The manager was startled that you implied Anna had stolen and said there must be another explanation. S/he spoke to the Director, who at that point remembered authorising the transaction e.g. had said "please pick up something for X" but hadn't connected it with the card use when you asked what a specific £20 was. Not even unauthorised in that scenario.

You got excited OP, thinking you'd found something, then it's all disappeared. You've had an attitude towards "Anna" ever since. It isn't appropriate, start to behave more professionally and be friendly if you want to get on.

The missing key point here is the outcome of the investigation. Anna is clearly still working there. Has she been exonerated? Has she been given a rap over the knuckles, but now it’s over? Is the investigation still ongoing?

If it turns out it was largely a misunderstanding and that Anna’s boss tipped her the wink to use the card, this is something both OP and Anna should have put behind them. So why is it still proving to be an issue?

There's a lot of entitled people who think that because it was for the company circumventing the procedures is 'ok' and the op was out of line. She's in finance. She'd be utterly shit and breaching her probation to take it on herself to ignore the transaction. The grumbly other employee sounds a right spiteful piece of work if they can't take it on the chin that acting outside of the rules gets noticed. Besides, surely presents come from the colleagues? The company doesn't want to fork out for some crappy bunch of flowers!