Colleague defrauded in work – who pays?

Qrt

I work in your average convenience store. Minimum wage, high staff turnover, sketchy interpretations of employment law etc etc.

Anyway, one of my colleagues fell victim to a change scam. For anyone unfamiliar, basically someone comes in, asks to get fifties changed into tens and twenties or similar, they change what they want a couple of times or get you to do something else (and hurry you) and before you know it they’ve swapped the piles and your till is €100 down.

Now, my colleague said that my manager says that he has to pay the €100 lost, unless the culprit is caught (fat chance).

Our contracts allow for money to be taken off our wages in the event of till shortages, but this was a deliberate criminal act of fraud. I’d put it in the same realm as someone leaning over and taking the till and running out their door themselves. To me, till shortages are giving someone back two twenties instead of one or something.

Anyway, is having him cough up the €100 legal?

_Brian

Is it legal ? Yes, it was in the contract that employees agreed to.

Jim2007

Qrt wrote: »

I
Our contracts allow for money to be taken off our wages in the event of till shortages, but this was a deliberate criminal act of fraud. I’d put it in the same realm as someone leaning over and taking the till and running out their door themselves. To me, till shortages are giving someone back two twenties instead of one or something.

Being in charge of the till is a responsible job and part of it is making sure that nobody steal the company's money. If you are going to work in retail, then ensuing that the public does not steal from your employer is part and parcel of the deal.

It is as a very hard lesson to have to learn, but that said, I would expect that you would have been advised as to the typical types of scams going on as part of your training... if not then perhaps there is a possibility of some room for negotiation.

mick087

This is appalling treatment of staff.
Are you not in a union?
If not would you not think of joining one then in turn getting the rest of the staff to join.
This would put you all in a better postilion when dealing with your employer and help you get better work conditions and pay.

skinny90

Qrt wrote: »

I work in your average convenience store. Minimum wage, high staff turnover, sketchy interpretations of employment law etc etc.

Anyway, one of my colleagues fell victim to a change scam. For anyone unfamiliar, basically someone comes in, asks to get fifties changed into tens and twenties or similar, they change what they want a couple of times or get you to do something else (and hurry you) and before you know it they’ve swapped the piles and your till is €100 down.

Now, my colleague said that my manager says that he has to pay the €100 lost, unless the culprit is caught (fat chance).

Our contracts allow for money to be taken off our wages in the event of till shortages, but this was a deliberate criminal act of fraud. I’d put it in the same realm as someone leaning over and taking the till and running out their door themselves. To me, till shortages are giving someone back two twenties instead of one or something.

Anyway, is having him cough up the €100 legal?

Personally I would make it very difficult for them if they ask me to cough up. I think something like a verbal/written warning should suffice.

Given tho bold text id leave anyways

Allinall

Jim2007 wrote: »

Being in charge of the till is a responsible job and part of it is making sure that nobody steal the company's money. If you are going to work in retail, then ensuing that the public does not steal from your employer is part and parcel of the deal.

It is as a very hard lesson to have to learn, but that said, I would expect that you would have been advised as to the typical types of scams going on as part of your training... if not then perhaps there is a possibility of some room for negotiation.

IMO it's not that straightforward.

As an exaggerated example, if someone came into the shop with a swan-off shotgun and robbed the till, the shop assistant would not be expected to cough up.

I wonder was there any training given in the area of possible scams?

Wuff Wuff

Allinall wrote: »

IMO it's not that straightforward.

As an exaggerated example, if someone came into the shop with a swan-off shotgun and robbed the till, the shop assistant would not be expected to cough up.

I wonder was there any training given in the area of possible scams?

theres a big difference between being held at gunpoint and an employee not doing their due dilligence and checking notes recived

i think its hars that they have to pay, a warning should suffice

Jim2007

Allinall wrote: »

IMO it's not that straightforward.

As an exaggerated example, if someone came into the shop with a swan-off shotgun and robbed the till, the shop assistant would not be expected to cough up.

It is not the same thing at all, you cannot prevent an armed robbery and so you are not required to carry the terms of your contract.

But there is noting stopping you from completing the terms of your contact under normal situations and your are expected to act in a diligent manner.

_Brian

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is not the same thing at all, you cannot prevent an armed robbery and so you are not required to carry the terms of your contract.

But there is noting stopping you from completing the terms of your contact under normal situations and your are expected to act in a diligent manner.

It’s literally their job to control the money in and out of the till. It’s a major failure on behalf of an employee to let this happen.

_Brian

skinny90 wrote: »

Personally I would make it very difficult for them if they ask me to cough up. I think something like a verbal/written warning should suffice.

Given tho bold text id leave anyways

When it’s written into their contract like that the company can deduct it from wages before paying them.

At least by making an arrangement it could be strung out over weeks to minimise the impact on the employee.

_Brian

I think this is an example of why people should look carefully at their contracts and understand what is in it. There’s no use agreeing to a contract stipulation, signing it and then not being happy when it’s applied.

Personally I’d advise people to avoid retail jobs with this stipulation. If more people did that then it would be less attractive for employers to include it.

Fluorescence

_Brian wrote: »

It’s literally their job to control the money in and out of the till. It’s a major failure on behalf of an employee to let this happen.

I think that's very unfair. I worked years ago in retail and had something similar happen to me. The local Gards were called down, they looked at the CCTV, and asked me for a statement. If my employer had turned around to me and said that €100 was coming out of my wages, that would have been close to a week's income for me at the time. That's not a big cost for a shop to absorb but it is massive to the minimum wage slave.

It is not up to the employee to pay for malicious acts of "customers"

KildareP

Unfortunately if it's covered in the contract, it's covered.

If he wanted to push it he could try and argue lack of policy or lack of training.

For example, when I worked for a fairly large retailer several years back, the policy was not to break down or change notes at all. Both because of this scam and a similar where they give you large counterfeit denominations to be changed into smaller, genuine notes.

We were also told where there was any dispute over amounts, e.g. you give change of a €10 but the customer says they gave you €20, you drop the till there and then and see if you're up or not. The prospect of having to wait several minutes while you did so would always put the chancers off.

_Brian

Fluorescence wrote: »

I think that's very unfair. I worked years ago in retail and had something similar happen to me. The local Gards were called down, they looked at the CCTV, and asked me for a statement. If my employer had turned around to me and said that €100 was coming out of my wages, that would have been close to a week's income for me at the time. That's not a big cost for a shop to absorb but it is massive to the minimum wage slave.

It is not up to the employee to pay for malicious acts of "customers"

Literally if it’s in the employee contract it is up to them to cover it.

How can people not understand this ??

Shelflife

€100 is a lot of money to lose in a change scam, yes it’s tough on your colleague but they effectively give away the money to someone else.

If they are not made to repay the money what’s to stop another colleague saying the same thing happened to him and pocketing the change !

There are plenty of convenience shops out there just getting by and €100 out of the owners pocket could hurt them as well.

Purple Mountain

Shelflife wrote: »

€100 is a lot of money to lose in a change scam, yes it’s tough on your colleague but they effectively give away the money to someone else.

If they are not made to repay the money what’s to stop another colleague saying the same thing happened to him and pocketing the change !

There are plenty of convenience shops out there just getting by and €100 out of the owners pocket could hurt them as well.

While it's a hard lesson to learn, I agree with the above.
I'm sure your friend is loyal and honest but this scenario could be abused by a dodgy emoloyee to get their hands on easy cash.
It's hard to know where to draw the line in terms of liability but an employer needs to protect themselves also.

LawBoy2018

If it were counterfeit money then I would have more sympathy but in this situation, I'd imagine that your employer is within his rights to withhold the difference from his wages. Fairly c*nty, but what can you do.

StackSteevens

mick087 wrote: »

This is appalling treatment of staff.

No it isn't! Why on earth should the employer take the hit for an employee's incompetence?

Of course many Trade Union members appear to believe that - for employers - money grows on trees. It's a core belief in the Pearse Doherty School of Economics.

LawBoy2018

StackSteevens wrote: »

No it isn't! Why on earth should the employer take the hit for an employee's incompetence?

Of course many Trade Union members appear to believe that - for employers - money grows on trees. It's the Pearse Dohertty School of Economics.

Rolls eyes... Must you make everything political? Give that chip on your shoulder a rest old boy.

Calahonda52

Shelflife wrote: »

€100 is a lot of money to lose in a change scam, yes it’s tough on your colleague but they effectively give away the money to someone else.

If they are not made to repay the money what’s to stop another colleague saying the same thing happened to him and pocketing the change !

.
Exactly, anything else is getting paid for no accountability.

Your colleague fell asleep at the wheel and now claims to be a victim.
.
I ran a cafe and till shortages were a big problem until I installed a big CCTV camera over the till, put it in their contract that the CCTV was there and that it was their problem if the till was short.

I had a complete change of staff and never had problems with the new staff.

The camera was never recording, just the red blinking light.

RandomViewer

Personal responsibility , you fxxk up you take the hit

Limpy

How did your friend get caught for €100? If the scammer gave you 2x€50 asking for change and he gave him change, then the scammer changed his mind and hurried your friend to which your friend gave him back the €100 and took nothing in return? Seems silly

StackSteevens

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Rolls eyes... Must you make everything political?

Because if I don't, then SF's "money grows on trees" nonsense will continue to spead and, who knows, perhaps some day soon, even someone as intelligent as you think you are may come to believe that it's true.

RandomViewer

StackSteevens wrote: »

Because if I don't, then SF's "money grows on trees" nonsense will continue to spead and, who knows, perhaps some day soon, even someone as intelligent as you think you are may come to believe that it's true.

Which party now in government got scammed by the banks?

Qrt

Thanks for the replies, it’s a fairly crap situation for him, and it’s one I’d fight tooth and nail if it were me, but it’s his battle so I’m gonna steer clear of too much involvement. I re-read my contract and it says counterfeit notes will be treated as cash short and deducted from wages but nothing else so I guess there’s a bit of an argument to be had there.

The conditions in the shop are far from ideal but I think most small convenience stores are like this. My first shop job was with a large chain with stringent fraud prevention training (which is why I’m so cautious with my till) but we haven’t been shown anything more than an dodgy fifty in this place.

I would join a union but I’m only full time for the next month or two and hopefully a couple of hours a week after that, actually ideally I’d be out of the place but I have enjoyed having a job during the height of the pandemic.

_Brian

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

If it were counterfeit money then I would have more sympathy but in this situation, I'd imagine that your employer is within his rights to withhold the difference from his wages. Fairly c*nty, but what can you do.

Only if it’s specifically mentioned in the contract. If it’s not stipulated in the contract then they cannot take the money.

LawBoy2018

_Brian wrote: »

Only if it’s specifically mentioned in the contract. If it’s not stipulated in the contract then they cannot take the money.

Maybe read the OP before posting? Lol

florawest

Qrt wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, it’s a fairly crap situation for him, and it’s one I’d fight tooth and nail if it were me, but it’s his battle so I’m gonna steer clear of too much involvement. I re-read my contract and it says counterfeit notes will be treated as cash short and deducted from wages but nothing else so I guess there’s a bit of an argument to be had there.

The conditions in the shop are far from ideal but I think most small convenience stores are like this. My first shop job was with a large chain with stringent fraud prevention training (which is why I’m so cautious with my till) but we haven’t been shown anything more than an dodgy fifty in this place.

I would join a union but I’m only full time for the next month or two and hopefully a couple of hours a week after that, actually ideally I’d be out of the place but I have enjoyed having a job during the height of the pandemic.

How many employees are there?
Any chance he could do small whip around even if it just totalled €50 at least it would help him/her a bit.
It's not easy really for both employer and the employee, will make all more aware.

impega1

In short regardless, if employee does not agree to repaying the money the employer has no legal right to make any deduction from their salary.

The only deductions which an employer can deduct from a staff members salary are statutory deductions (PAYE,PRSI,USC and LPT)
These are deductions advised by Revenue and Employer is obliged to deduct these amounts.

All other deductions must have the employees consent. Otherwise it is deemed withholding salary and would have consequences at WRC and other legal routes.

The flip side, employee can refuse to repay and employer terminates the employment. However as there is a contract in place they must give adequate notice, have applied all policies as regards discipline, performance etc.

Qrt

impega1 wrote: »

In short regardless, if employee does not agree to repaying the money the employer has no legal right to make any deduction from their salary.

The only deductions which an employer can deduct from a staff members salary are statutory deductions (PAYE,PRSI,USC and LPT)
These are deductions advised by Revenue and Employer is obliged to deduct these amounts.

All other deductions must have the employees consent. Otherwise it is deemed withholding salary and would have consequences at WRC and other legal routes.

The flip side, employee can refuse to repay and employer terminates the employment. However as there is a contract in place they must give adequate notice, have applied all policies as regards discipline, performance etc.

I don’t think that last part is a runner I’m afraid, he (and myself too for a tad longer) are on the six month probation. Fairly sure he’d be told where to go.

_Brian

impega1 wrote: »

In short regardless, if employee does not agree to repaying the money the employer has no legal right to make any deduction from their salary.

The only deductions which an employer can deduct from a staff members salary are statutory deductions (PAYE,PRSI,USC and LPT)
These are deductions advised by Revenue and Employer is obliged to deduct these amounts.

All other deductions must have the employees consent. Otherwise it is deemed withholding salary and would have consequences at WRC and other legal routes.

The flip side, employee can refuse to repay and employer terminates the employment. However as there is a contract in place they must give adequate notice, have applied all policies as regards discipline, performance etc.

The employee agreed to this by signing a contract with the explicit provision that the employer could recover money short on the till from the employee.

amadangomor

Any good employer would take the hit on this and realise that most employees will learn their lesson.

As the OP said they could have trained their employees better in combating fraud as the OP had been in previous employment so are partially responsible.

Looks like they are not a professional outfit at all.

Jim2007

amadangomor wrote: »

Any good employer would take the hit on this and realise that most employees will learn their lesson.

As the OP said they could have trained their employees better in combating fraud as the OP had been in previous employment so are partially responsible.

Looks like they are not a professional outfit at all.

Of course the other side would be that they employed someone to do a job and that person failed to deliver.... and being professional, the expect the other party to be professional also and stick to the terms of the contract that they both signed up to....

Jim2007

impega1 wrote: »

In short regardless, if employee does not agree to repaying the money the employer has no legal right to make any deduction from their salary.

The only deductions which an employer can deduct from a staff members salary are statutory deductions (PAYE,PRSI,USC and LPT)
These are deductions advised by Revenue and Employer is obliged to deduct these amounts.

All other deductions must have the employees consent. Otherwise it is deemed withholding salary and would have consequences at WRC and other legal routes.

The flip side, employee can refuse to repay and employer terminates the employment. However as there is a contract in place they must give adequate notice, have applied all policies as regards discipline, performance etc.

Well it's along time ago since I studied the law... but I doubt very much that it has changed to the point that a judge would conclude that singing a contract acknowledging that deductions can be make for till shortages does not amount to consent.

CrankyHaus

Did the employee receive training and instruction that if they had followed would have enabled them to avoid being scammed?

If not then the employee can take the matter to the WRC and argue that the deduction does not meet the "fair and reasonable" condition, and let the WRC decide. They might want to look at all of the conditions for deductions of wages and see if the employer met them.

Bandana boy

these scams are usually worth 10-20 euro a go so was he fooled 5-10 times ? , if he was fooled for 100 in one go I would have high suspicion he was in on the scam .
its a tough lesson to learn but you need to treat the money at the till as if it was your own.

YellowBucket

Does that not breech minimum wage rules? If the employer is holding back money and their hourly rate is now less than minimum wage.

Seems grossly unfair and looks like loading your business risks onto powerless, low paid staff.

If someone’s not implementing security protocols, you can have a meeting about poor performance and give them a formal warning and then, within reason, if they don’t resolve the problem, let them go, but taking a huge chunk of low paid staff’s wages is damn nasty in my view.

If someone is implementing security protocols and the business has just been conned by a sophisticated scam, then the risk should absolutely not be borne by the front line staff. That’s ridiculous.

OMM 0000

I feel the issue here is your colleague made a mistake (even if that mistake was being bamboozled).

It is super unfortunate the employer makes employees pay for their mistakes, but that is what the contract says. I've no idea if it's legal.

Ash.J.Williams

I'm not very bright and when members of a particular irish ethnic minority start talking to me i immediately panic and start watching what i say in case they catch me ou, crafty feckers taking advantage of me"!

Qrt

I actually read my contract and it only mentions deducting till shortages in relation to taking in counterfeit notes. That said, the contracts are woeful in their construction leaving lots of ambiguity. I’d love to get the staff into a union but that said, there’s only five or so full time staff who aren’t managers so I feel it’ll be difficult. I’m no James Connolly, sadly.

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

This is appalling treatment of staff.
Are you not in a union?
If not would you not think of joining one then in turn getting the rest of the staff to join.
This would put you all in a better postilion when dealing with your employer and help you get better work conditions and pay.

Ridiculous suggestion.

Being in a union would cost every staff member a multiple of 100 year after year after year.

mick087

salonfire wrote: »

Ridiculous suggestion.

Being in a union would cost every staff member a multiple of 100 year after year after year.

Ridiculous no, in this case it's essential to get better pay and contracts.

Shelflife

mick087 wrote: »

Ridiculous no, in this case its essential to get better contracts.

Theres no guarantee that you will get better contracts,wages or working conditions with a union.

They will guarantee that you get everything that you are legally entitled to, and they will guarantee to take approx €200 (€4 per week I believe) out of your pay packet every year.

Most convenience store contracts would be a pretty basic contract covering the main areas.

In the Ops instance his friend has very simply given too much change to a scammer, it happens and when it comes out of the employees pocket it wont happen a second time.

If as was suggested the employer dealt with it as a disciplinary matter you could have an employee losing their job rather than €100.

Its a total sickner to be caught out like this, most employers wont like to see their employees to be caught like this but simply cant afford to take the hit especially if it was to happen on a regular basis.

Its a life lesson Op and your friend will learn very quickly from it.

rainbowtrout

Qrt wrote: »

I actually read my contract and it only mentions deducting till shortages in relation to taking in counterfeit notes. That said, the contracts are woeful in their construction leaving lots of ambiguity. I’d love to get the staff into a union but that said, there’s only five or so full time staff who aren’t managers so I feel it’ll be difficult. I’m no James Connolly, sadly.

If that line wasn't in the contract, as crap and all as it might be, it could leave the employer wide open to scams that the employee was in on. What if this became a regular thing, that once a month an employee was scammed for €100. How many times does the employer have to take the hit?

Most people are paying for stuff by card for the last few months, but any retail shop I've been in the last number of years have regular checks on notes, particularly if they are €50s.

Were you trained to check notes OP?

Strumms

The employee fûcked up. Thought they were being helpful but got scammed.

What preventative measures were in put place by the company to minimize the likelihood or ability of people to successfully carry out a scam like this ?

I think the sensible thing would be in the employee manual and training ...

— employees may change notes / coins for customers IF the following criteria is met...

1) the till is adequately stocked with every variety of coin / note

2) their are no more than two other people in the Q

3) the max amount of change given will be for 50 euros.

marieholmfan

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well it's along time ago since I studied the law... but I doubt very much that it has changed to the point that a judge would conclude that singing a contract acknowledging that deductions can be make for till shortages does not amount to consent.

A very very long time and you clearly never read Atiyah's rise and fall of freedom of contract. An employee cannot ever have wages reduced to below the minimum wage for any reason.


There ia a presumption of inequality of bargaining power in this situation.

On the other I'd fire your colleague if I owned that shop so perhaps better to lose the days wages.

Or spend a day pocketing all cash then walk out: oops, I did it again.

Cazale

If the till is up does the employee get the difference?

Qrt

Cazale wrote: »

If the till is up does the employee get the difference?

If only

Jim2007

marieholmfan wrote: »

A very very long time and you clearly never read Atiyah's rise and fall of freedom of contract. An employee cannot ever have wages reduced to below the minimum wage for any reason.


There ia a presumption of inequality of bargaining power in this situation.

On the other I'd fire your colleague if I owned that shop so perhaps better to lose the days wages.

Or spend a day pocketing all cash then walk out: oops, I did it again.

A legal historical text book.... try a couple of statutes and a few relevant cases in Irish law and get back to us.

jhegarty

Jim2007 wrote: »

A legal historical text book.... try a couple of statutes and a few relevant cases in Irish law and get back to us.

Minimum Wage applies except in a very narrow set of reasons. Is this one of them ?

BattleCorp

Qrt wrote: »

I actually read my contract and it only mentions deducting till shortages in relation to taking in counterfeit notes. That said, the contracts are woeful in their construction leaving lots of ambiguity. I’d love to get the staff into a union but that said, there’s only five or so full time staff who aren’t managers so I feel it’ll be difficult. I’m no James Connolly, sadly.

Where there is ambiguity in a contract, the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the person who didn't write up the contract, i.e. the employee.