Colleague defrauded in work – who pays?

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.

salonfire

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.

BattleCorp

How does the employee know that the till was down €100. Did the employer tell them or did they notice it themselves.

And were they the only person who was at the till during that period? In other words, were there multiple till users during the shift?

impega1

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.

Section 5.1 of payment wages act 1991
Outlines limited cases where employer can make deductions - please note the word 'and' and not 'or' - employer must be satisfied that all conditions are complied with before making a deduction.

hseen too many cases lost at wrc because they didnt comply with all subsections.

StackSteevens

Cazale wrote: »

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

Unless the till is right the employee is incompetent, so the same sanction should apply!

Shelflife

Cazale wrote: »

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

If the till is up on a regular basis it’s usually a red flag for nefarious activities.

Gemancy

Can see it from both the employer and employee side on this one. A crap situation. The WRC is probably the best solution, although for a 100€ hardly worth the hassle unless on a point of principle by your friend. Depends on how unfair he thinks it is I suppose.

However, seeing as there was an award recently for somebody not being trained to polish a wine glass, it seems reasonable to then expect formal scam avoidance training too....where do you draw the line...?

the_syco

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what_you_should_know/hours-and-wages/deductions%20from%20pay/

Special restrictions are placed on employers in relation to deductions (or the receipt of payments) from wages, which -

arise from any act or omission of the employee (e.g. till shortages

Any deduction (or payment) from wages of the kinds described at a. or b. above must satisfy the following conditions -

i) the deduction (or payment to the employer) must be provided for in the contract of employment in a term whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing
ii) the amount of the deduction (or payment to the employer) from wages must be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances including the amount of the wages of the employee,
iii) the employee must be given at some time prior to the act or omission, or the provision of the goods or services, written details of the terms in the contract of employment governing the deduction (or payment to the employer) from wages. When a written contract exists, a copy of the term of the contract which provides for the deduction or payment must be given to the employee. In any other case, the employee must be given written notice of the existence and effect of the term.
Any deduction (or payment to the employer) arising from any act or omission of an employee, in addition to meeting the requirements set out at (I) to (iii) above, must satisfy the following conditions:

the employee must be given particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction (or payment) at least one week before the deduction (or payment) is made,
the deduction (or payment) must be made no later than 6 months after the act or omission became known to the employer. However, if a series of deductions (or payments) are to be made in respect of a particular act or omission, the first deduction (or payment) in the series must be made within the 6 month period.

Looks like the shop can do so. Some shops are lenient, some aren't. If the OP's mate doesn't like it, they should look elsewhere for a job, as once the shop gets hit once, they'll do it again, and probably to your mate again.

Qrt

So they tried it on me in work today. I just said I don’t have change and that was that. Hopefully he does the same in future.

_Brian

Qrt wrote: »

So they tried it on me in work today. I just said I don’t have change and that was that. Hopefully he does the same in future.

So the system works.
Like it or not having that staff member cough up the shortfall has made them and every other staff member more careful with the businesses cash in the till.

When my eldest was working in a cafe for the first time I made really sure she understood the implications of handling someone else’s cash.

Strumms

If an employee fûcks up, costs you cash in the manner spoken of, discipline (warning) and retraining in the area where they are not satisfactorily performing.

Charging the employee money out of their wages is a piss poor response. Not good enough by any stretch.. By the same token if the till is up a tenner, should the employee be enabled to pocket the tenner and go home and enjoy a couple of pints ? Or as I’d imagine the employer will WANT and EXPECT to benefit from that kind of genuine oversight but will be unwilling to share the burden of loosing a few quid.

If there is a performance issue with the employee....

August 6th... down 12.40

August 21st... down 23. 60

August 29th... down 14.00

In this months payroll 50 quid is missing from the tills, due to three instances of poor performance .... cameras are checked, no evidence of theft, it’s a performance issue...

Letter of concern / verbal warning

Written warnings

Final written

Termination

GT89

Some petrol stations now have a system where you put the cash into and a slot and the change is given out that way meaning there is no physical cash handling for the employee. This prevents any cash discrepancies, theft and improves staff safety as it more less reduces the chances of hold ups to zero. I think the OPs employer nedds to look at system like this.

https://premiumcashsolutions.com/safepay/