My candidate would be Dave, our new salesman who was given a company credit card. At the time, these cards were given out to most salespeople so that they could buy petrol. Nothing out of the ordinary there, then.
At the end of the second month in the job, the accounts department started querying Dave’s statements. It turned out he – and Mrs Dave - been doing the weekly grocery shop with the card. When asked to explain himself, he claimed grumpily that popping into the local Sainsbury's was “a perk”.
Taking this behaviour to extremes, I'm guessing he could have booked a fortnight in the Maldives on the assumption that doing so was just one of those things a salesman in publishing typically did. It obviously helped that he was deranged — we later found that his background in "the army" was not all he'd claimed — but this is my favourite example of a company facility being abused.
Michael Scutt writes:
It’s an old saying in employment law that if you want to get rid of someone, take a good look at their expenses. Stealing, thieving, fiddling, “adjusting”, being economical with the truth … they are all examples of dishonesty.
Theoretically even taking a pencil from the office stationery cupboard is stealing but most employers will take a sensible approach in trivial cases. Every employee owes a duty of fidelity to his/her employer. This includes not working against the employer’s best interests and certainly includes not stealing from them. “Massaging” the expenses is widespread, of course, but most people don’t behave as blatantly as Dave here did. It is a disciplinary matter and the likely outcome will be summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
To avoid any misunderstanding at all, many employers that issue credit cards for expenses will specifically inform the employee (usually in the contract of employment) that the card is to be used for business expenses only and will set out the consequences for misuse and abuse of the card.
Having wigged out at the prospect of his legion fans forced to pay for his wickedly funny work at the now-paywalled Times, BabyBarista blogger Tim Kevan has swept his pink-ribboned observations of life at the Bar over to The Guardian, where readers can get their daily hit of humour free.
Now the subject of two books, BabyBarista is a fictional account of a junior barrister practising at the Bar - The Times calls it “A cross between The Talented Mr Ripley, Rumpole and Bridget Jones's Diary ... a gallop of a read”.
We're reviewing the new book, Law and Disorder, on Law Donut next month, but in the meantime, enjoy your lunchbreak more than you would have done without BabyB and his cartoon pals on Tim’s site or at The Guardian.
In my last job on a legal paper, my favourite colleague was our pool sub-editor. Alcoholic and unstable, Bella lived for the evenings, in particular her longstanding passion for the 'Walrus of Love', Barry White. She had been attached to Barry for thirty years, despite his girth and numerous marriages, and lost the plot - as well the ability to spell - at just the thought of his throbbing vocals.
One day the subs’ phone rang. Bella, who was sending the issue to the printer, threw it down. Through high-pitched, incoherent shrieks, we established that Barry, who had been due to arrive in the UK to perform, was having a "life-threatening" health scare. She was so hysterical, we had to send her home. What’s the HR position on that?
Michael Scutt writes:
Firstly we shouldn’t judge this lady just because of her fondness for Barry White. Look beyond that. Instead consider that this is a person who has just had a nasty shock and is very upset. What would be the position if, say, it was a close family member or partner who had a “life-threatening “ health scare? In that situation it would not be that remarkable if she became hysterical and had to be sent home.
The real issue here is whether she was acting genuinely or not. If she was “hamming it up” then there might be a call for disciplinary proceedings, following a proper investigation. However, care needs to be taken because the lady was said to be unstable and an alcoholic. A mental illness, such as depression, may qualify as a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (and as amended). Alcoholism doesn’t qualify, although it might if it was caused by her depression. The point to bear in mind is that if this lady is treated less favourably than a non-disabled person because of her disability she might be able to bring a claim for discrimination. They can be very expensive and time consuming to deal with.
Tread very carefully before proceeding.