Misinterpreting emails

[Sazzle41]

My poor colleage got something approved in writing with the words, 'in this instance'. Actual words. Everyone concerned took that to mean for him, it was ok , both now for that stuffand going forward for more stuff. But: The person who said those words says now it meant for one time only, not going forward and financially there have been costs. They are now looking at taking action against my friend. Where does she stand legally, anyone know? She is on a fixed term contract ending in Oct. She is worried sick.

That seems pretty cut and dry.

She emailed and asked if she could buy the more expensive items. They said yes, in this instance. Meaning this time. If they'd meant she could do it moving forwards, they'd have just said yes.

That said, they do seem to be treating this rather heavy handedly.

They are saying up to £10K- its IT stuff. She think thats wild exageration and she is doing list of everything. Aagh I forgot to say, after that, future stuff she bought she asked her other line manager to approve and other line manager approved each one - in writing. They are disciplining both Line Mgrs - who are perm. My friend is on hol, back Monday.

I don't know - I think this can easily be misconstrued - eg. the company generally uses cheapo paper, but this is the VIP section, so in this instance it's OK to buy the expensive stuff - the instance in question being that it's the VIP section.

Also, frankly, this is also finance, and the person who approved the permissions upgrade's fault too? If finance were unsure, they should have confirmed (they are the final filter after all) and the person that approved the higher permissions is also responsible for not checking the permission was removed/only for one time if that was what they meant.

You don't push blame down to the lowest person. The highest person involved should take responsibility - or at least that's how I work, and how good companies work.

Well, to me, that's cut and dried then - it was approved by the line manager (and 10k in IT.. really not that much). However if she's not perm then they'll probably get rid of her - that's the problem with Contracting, you're the first to go.

Oh jesus 10k.

We'll surely if her line manager approved it then her part in this is mitigated. The whole point of having a manager is to go to them for guidance. The line manager and your friend both interpreted the email incorrectly so whoever wrote the email did a very bad job of making their position clear.

Sounds to me like the company is clutching at straws here and trying to recoup losses with a heavy handed approach. Is there a union at all? ACAS maybe? She needs some guidance here if they are going to start disciplinary proceedings.

Agree with PPs that "in this instance" generally means a one-off, but they could have been more specific and line managers and finance approving further orders and permanent colleagues ordering the same items with no such restrictions seem to go in her favour.

they are being very heavy handed to try to get money from her.

She is likely to lose her job though and might also need to seek to negotiate a reference.

Well then, that's not a loss, it's an overspend sanctioned by her manager. She's out of the frame. She hasn't exceeded her authority in any way if she's had it properly signed off.
Are they really "taking action" against your friend??

Yes Flogging. They had a 30min conf call with the lawyers then one of the lawyers came over in person from our other office and stayed around 15mins then left looking very cheery. The line mgr who said 'in this instance' initiated the call to the lawyers. Apparently she has said she accepts she is being discplined but if she is my friend is 'going down with her'.

It sounds like extremely misplaced bravado, Sazzle. The legal team have nothing on your friend, and her manager can't possibly "bring her down" if there's a clear audit trail of authorisation for the spending.
That's one advantage of needing "permission", as it were. If it's signed off by someone higher up the food chain; the buck stops there.

Totally agree with flogging. Please get your friend to make some calls and get advice as she sounds like she is going to be a lamb to the slaughter without it.

How long has she worked there?

2 years flowery. She went thru her list and reckons it adds up to £3k absolute max, not £10K as well. We made 1.2 billion profit last year so in scheme of things its kind of small potatoes. (appreciate others might not think so, only my opinion).

Thank you all, she is the most genuine person so is horrified this has happened. The line mgr who called the lawyers is known for her mood swings apparently, but this is the first i knew of them, being the new Assistant for the team: its been awful atmosphere the past two days. Friend is going sort an appt with an employment lawyer asap. At least her skills are highly desirable IT wise if she gets push.

OP - at my place of work, the buck does not stop, or rest, with the line manager who approved the expenditure but with the individual who requested it knowingn(or who should have known) it was outside their limits or company policy or whatever...

If she's only got a few more weeks there anyway, it's entirely likely they'll just let her contract run out and leave it at that, concentrating instead on permanent staff who were involved.

Surely If the finance person was copied in, and she didn't specifically send an email saying approve me forever, then the error is between the person she asked and the person who changed her profile. All she did was ask for stuff she was approved to receive. Can't see how she's dkne anything wrong. Surely it was up to the finance person to clarify if they weren't sure...?!

Thats what I thought Little but no-one I work with seems to agree. I think the two perm line managers and the finance mgr are making my contractor friend a scapegoat. I am new but have been told the line mgr who went to the lawyers can be very 'challenging' in their management style generally but everyone thinks this is very OTT.