Salary decrease as a punishment?

honeyc

Hey, just wanted to see if anyone knows if this is ok to do. My cousin works in the civil service and has done for almost 8 years without any incident. He got married three years ago and has a 1 year old baby. In Feb this year, he contacted a member of the public using the information that he had on file. This is in breach of company policy and when asked about this, he owned up completely and told his managers that he was under severe stress, in his home life and financially (their son has been quite ill from birth and there's been a lot of rushes to hospital, medical bills etc). He told them that he felt that he was on the verge of a breakdown and that he needed help and has been seeing a pyschiatrist since then.

This incident occurred almost 5 months ago and a disciplinary meeting was held. My cuz hasn't missed a day and has continued to go to work every day with this extra stress of not knowing what was going to happen with his job. They only told him today of the outcome of the disciplinary- they have decided to take away his salary increases for the last 3 years and freeze his salary at that level it was three years ago for a further two years and he is not eligible for promotion for 2 years.

Also, he hasn't received anything that says that this is the punishment from a verbal, first written, final written warning etc. Personally I think that the punishment is quite excessive and I didn't think that an employer was able to reduce an employees salary like that. And the length of time it took for them to come to a decision and the fact that he told them he was under stress from financial strain! It just seems crazy and as though they just want him to hand in his notice.

He has the oppurtunity to appeal it within the next month, any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Nody

Let me sum it up for you.

A civil service (i.e. public servant) accesses and uses data he's forbidden to use (i.e. abuse of trust) and claims non work related stress for it. You think the fact he don't get a pay raise or promotion and loses three years of salary increases is to severe? I'd say he should be happy he still has a job! That is the kind of abuse that gets people fired on a regular basis, esp. if a newspaper decides to start a campaign about it.

Agent Smith

i'd sack him tbh

Gone West

honeyc wrote: »

if anyone knows if this is ok to do.

Its the civil service. Half of their pretentious days are spent making sure that everything they do is legally sound. I'm certain that they wouldn't hold a disciplinary hearing and all agree on a course of action that was against the workers rights.

Also, when someone in the civil service breaks ranks and rules like that, they don't like it one bit. Sticklers for rules, and they would punish severely for this sort of thing.

Gillo

I didn't think he could get his wages dropped, maybe he was demoted which in turn would have resulted in a drop in wages, either way your cousin is very lucky to still have a job.

You never said why he contacted that person, what were his reasons?

I work for a large telecoms company and have been asked in the past by friends if I can check others people accounts for them, there's no way I would do that for any number of reasons, it's a breach of the customers trust in my employer if nothing else not to mention losing my job / prosecution under the Data Protection act.

Just because he was entrusted with information does not mean it is his to use as he wants. He's lucky the press didn't get hold of what he did or they would have a field day.

Woodgate

He's lucky to still have a job.

If it was the private sector he'd prob have been sacked.

I can't see how you were looking for sympathy for him.

BurnsCarpenter

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Its the civil service. Half of their pretentious days are spent making sure that everything they do is legally sound

The other half is spent discussing Philosophy and French cinema, I suppose? :pac:

Petrolium Hat

He knew what he was doing, he's lucky to have a job. He signs all sorts of privacy forms the day he starts. He's actually relatively lucky he's not being brough to court.

Gone West

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

The other half is spent discussing Philosophy and French cinema, I suppose? :pac:

Nah most of the civil service can br broken down into three major groups and one minor:

Time spent doing things in work, highest first:
Being needlessly pretentious
Coming in late and leaving early
Coffee / smokes / chat breaks

and the minor one would obviously be:
Working as inefficiently as possible, as little as possible.

ScouseMouse

He abused his position for personal gain.

He used his position to access information which he used in a personal capacity.

That breaks a million laws and in the private sector he would have been sacked on the spot.

seamus

It's not possible to change a person's contract of employment without their consent. Most people's contracts detail their gross salary, therefore it is not possible to reduce a person's salary without their agreement.

However, this may differ in the civil service where they have set grades and so forth.

Or it may have been a matter of, "Agree to a reduced salary or you'll be let go".

Either way, as others say he should be glad to not lose his job. It really depends on what he was contacting this member of the public for. Since it was found out about, I'm assuming that this member of the public wasn't overjoyed about it.

parsi

Depends.

In the Private Sector personal data is mishandled all the time - did anybody from BOI get the sack over the non-encrypted laptops ? Did anybody in AIB get teh sack for sending out bank statements to the wrong people ? Did anybody from eircom get the sack for contravening guidelines on using personal data of ex-customers ?

I'm sure the Civil service is like the private sector - it's not the crime as much as the amount of exposure that the crime generates that determines the punishment. The events where folk in revenue pulled up the details about the euro millions winner brought a great deal of exposure.

This punishment does not seem excessive.

Kimbot

The punishment seems fair. I have heard and dealt with people that have been demoted, not allowed an increment for 5+ years or go for promotion for 5+ years in my time in the civil service.

Eoin

seamus wrote: »

It's not possible to change a person's contract of employment without their consent. Most people's contracts detail their gross salary, therefore it is not possible to reduce a person's salary without their agreement.

However, this may differ in the civil service where they have set grades and so forth.

Or it may have been a matter of, "Agree to a reduced salary or you'll be let go".

Can the contract allow for salary reductions if explicitly stated? Or could that be deemed an unreasonable clause...

seamus wrote: »

It really depends on what he was contacting this member of the public for. Since it was found out about, I'm assuming that this member of the public wasn't overjoyed about it.

That's what I'm wondering. It could have been anything from a severe misuse of confidential information to simply not following procedures to the letter.

seamus

eoin_s wrote: »

Can the contract allow for salary reductions if explicitly stated? Or could that be deemed an unreasonable clause...

This is where I think it gets into the nitty-gritty of employment law. I suppose if the contract states that it may be amended in line with disciplinary procedures, and the person is provided with said disciplinary procedures, then maybe.

I really don't know though.

SarahMc

I presume there were no verbal/written warnings as this sounds like a gross dismissal hearing.

It sounds like they want to get rid of him, as he is such a liability, but it is notoriously difficult to do so in the public sector.

He can a) thank his lucky stars he still has a job
b) get his union involved

I'd go for a).

ScouseMouse

parsi wrote: »

Depends.

In the Private Sector personal data is mishandled all the time - did anybody from BOI get the sack over the non-encrypted laptops ? Did anybody in AIB get teh sack for sending out bank statements to the wrong people ? Did anybody from eircom get the sack for contravening guidelines on using personal data of ex-customers ?

Yes but in this case, it was deliberate AND it was for personal use. It was no mistake or error.

ixoy

I imagine he was busted down a few levels and made ineligible for promotion for a few years. This is what happened, so I'm reliably told, in Revenue to a few people who abused their privileges. Personally believe he should have been fired but that's a bit too difficult to do at times in the civil/public service.

Eoin

superscouse wrote: »

Yes but in this case, it was deliberate AND it was for personal use. It was no mistake or error.

Do we know that yet?

Jo King

Sounds completely over the top. Did he contact the Welfare Officer in his department? Did his union make representations for him? The rest of his time in the Civil Service will likely be a misery if he does not get this overturned.

ScouseMouse

eoin_s wrote: »

Do we know that yet?

Yes we do know that. In the original post, it was stated that he contacted the person. So, the information gained was used in a personal manner/capacity.

Eoin

superscouse wrote: »

Yes we do know that. In the original post, it was stated that he contacted the person. So, the information gained was used in a personal manner/capacity.

The odds are that you are correct, however it is still an assumption that it was for personal gain, and not just a breach of procedure.

Firetrap

Regardless of whether it was for personal gain or not, he abused his position. Anyone with a modicum of common sense should've know that doing something like that is a no-no. He's lucky to still have his job tbh.

RoseBlossom

I would agree with many of the posters here - although you think he has been treated harshly, it really could have been much worse. I've been told of one person who was demoted, with a subsequent drop in pay of course, and barred from going for promotion for a period due to accessing innapropriate content on his computer when he was alone at lunch.

Actually breaching data protection laws and contacting a member of the public is on a whole other scale than that I would think.

Onikage

He is incredibly lucky to still have a job without being demoted. They probably took his circumstances into account (which is guaranteed to be somewhere in the rules they spent five months examining).

BanzaiBk

Wow, I'm surprised they didn't fire him. I worked with 2 people who got themselves into this situation (woo public service :pac:); one of them was let go after a hearing and one was demoted a grade which resulted in a pay decrease and was not allowed go for promotions for 18 months. Maybe that's what happened in this case?

eth0_

I didn't think you could ever have your salary reduced by an employer except in the case where you agreed to it (if the business was in danger of going under and employee's were asked to take a pay cut).

However I do think he should have been demoted.

bobbysands81

Every Department in the Civil Service has an Employee Assistance Officer whom people can seek advice from, this might be a good starting point... and it might be an option for your cousin to remain in contact with this Employee Assistance Officer when he does get back sorted out.

His Union, if he is in one, might also be another good starting point.

Whatever the reasons for your cousin doing this I hope he gets things sorted and moves on beyond this. The Civil Service is moving towards a situation where sacking people is becomming much more common so (without getting moralistic) your cousin should be glad this isn't happening.

Good luck to him and fair play to you for trying to help.

mcaul

Hi

The incident would come under gross misconduct in an employment agreement. Standard for banks, insurance companies, medical places etc - any place that holds personal information.

Normally this is instant dismissal and unions rarely get involved. In this particular case the person owned up immediately and was given a chance for explanation.

As he probably had an unblemished record the managers decided that a drop in salary scale may be sufficient punishment as in all probability no harm has beeen done and it is unlikely to happen again.

Without knowing all the facts, i'd say it is a reasonable outcome if the offence was as serious as written in the op.