Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

(Financial    Officer)

(Training Provider)

Representatives

SIPTU (Representative)

 IBEC (Representative)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13    of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00008059-001

08/11/2016

The Complainant is employed with the Respondent since the   10^th of March 2008. She currently holds the position of a Finance   Officer. She alleges that she received a written warning in relation to a   workplace issue which she believed was too severe. She appealed the sanction   with the Respondent but her appeal was not successful. She filed a complaint   with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 8^th of November   2016.

The Complainant’s representative outlined the following   submission;

That she had been asked by her manager CW to tidy up the   Learner Fund data base as it was too difficult to read (a lot of columns and   different colours etc.) She had inherited this database from both PMCK and MF   and she awaited direction from CW to make any changes to that database. It   was during this tidy up that she spotted anomalies where a training provider   was paid for three modules when the learner was only approved for two   modules. She e-mailed the college concerned and asked for clarity as to what   modules the learner had actually studied to see if there had been a mistake   made by them on their invoices. She then approached PMCK and asked her what   would happen with Pobal where a learner had accessed more money than they had   been approved for. PMCK accessed the Pobal Portal and pulled up the learner concerned   and found that the learner had been approved for only two modules - €300.   PMCK was able to increase this figure to €450 which she was surprised to see,   but PMCK was adamant that amounts could be increased up to €1200- this then   meant that the overall budget was then increased by the €150, which she   pointed out to PMCK. She had no knowledge of the Portal system or training on   Portal. Thinking of Debit/Credit, she said that the overall figure had to   remain the same, so if it was alright to increase a learner, then it must be   alright to decrease the learner by the same amount, keeping the overall   budget the same. This change was made by reducing the learner by the €150 – a   learner who had signed the Grandfathering and as a result would never be   accessing the funding. PMCK made the changes to the Learner Fund Pobal Portal   –individual learners. She did not   alter any financial records.

Any previous dealings that she had with Pobal templates,   figures could not be changed. So if Pobal left the Portal wide open to   change, then she assumed PLCK must be correct in her assumptions. She did not   question her as she had been working on the portal since the Learner Fund was   created. She had never been on the Learner Fund Pobal portal before that day.   She had no need to use the portal as she was using the database given to her   by MF during the handover. At no stage of the handover was the Pobal Learner   Fund Portal mentioned.

She went back to her desk and continued going back over   the database to tidy it up in order to make sure that there were no further   anomalies. She never intended not to inform her manager of these anomalies as   SM can confirm in her statement;

‘S said she wanted to go through all of the participants   to make sure that they had all the over payments identified before bringing   it to C’s attention.’

She continued to work on the learner fund, along with   other tasks on Wednesday the 20^th of April. At the end of that   day, she spoke with SM and brought her up to date and specifically requested   SM to mention at the S&D meeting on Thursday the 21^st , was it   alright to make changes to the learner fund Pobal Portal without prior   approval from Pobal. She knew that the manager CW would be attending at this   meeting.

She feels very strongly about the sanction that was issued   to her as it does not fit the crime. She was not adequately trained in the   learner fund, to know that the changes could not be made to the Learner Fund   Pobal portal without prior permission from Pobal.

She made an error by not informing CW about those   anomalies immediately but at no stage did she not intend to tell CW about   these anomalies. She has a clean disciplinary record since she joined the   organisation in March 2008. She feels that there is a need for training on   the Learner Funding.

The Respondent’s Representative outlined the following   submission;

The Complainant alleges that she unfairly received a   formal disciplinary warning from the Respondent on the grounds that the   punishment doesn’t fit the crime. The Respondent refutes this claim. The   written warning in question was proportionate in the circumstances and   followed the Respondent’s Disciplinary Procedure and satisfied the principles   of natural justice.

The Respondent carried out a thorough and fair   investigation and disciplinary into the allegation against the complainant.   The Respondent acted in accordance with their policy and procedure in   undertaking an impartial investigation and subsequent disciplinary action   against the Complainant. At all times, the Respondent provided the   complainant with every opportunity to respond to the allegations and afforded   her the right to be represented at every stage. Furthermore, different board   members attended the investigation, the disciplinary and the appeal. This is   despite the fact that this is a small employer with very limited resources.

The decision to issue a Stage 3 written warning was fair   both substantively and procedurally. The Complainant’s actions gave rise for   the need for disciplinary action and she failed to provide any mitigating   factors to allay the sanction. The main facts of the case are not in dispute:

1. Overpayments were made by the Complainant and were not reported to management.

2. Changes were made to balance the budget through the online portal system.

3. While it was pointed out to Ms. M that this was unacceptable, the Complainant reversed the changes she had made on the internal financial database.

4. There is conflicting accounts between the Complainant and Ms. K as to whose idea it was to alter records on the Pobal system. However, the Complainant is the only financial officer in the Respondent’s employment. She is more senior to Ms. K, she has her own office as opposed to Ms. K’s work station in the shared office space area.

5. All financial irregularities were to be reported to management immediately upon discovery.

Given these points it is reasonable for the Respondent to   conclude that the Complainant had mis-conducted herself. At a minimum, the   Complainant’s work performance fell short of the required standards as   set-out in her job description and contract of employment. It is not uncommon   for employers to issue a more severe sanction for employees attempting to   ‘cover’ up financial overpayments. The Complainant’s actions were considered   a fundamental breach of trust between the parties. In this case, the   Complainant’s 8.5 years service saved her from a more severe sanction. To   allow such misconduct to go unpunished or to have administered a lesser sanction   would have sent a wrong message to all employees in the organisation. The   CCC’s rely solely on Pobal managed DCYA funding and any contravention of   their financial administration protocols and procedures could impact   adversely on the CCC in question.

The Complainant worked as a finance officer in the   organisation. She was the most senior person in the office that she worked   in. Her work colleague had no formal training in finance. If she had any doubt as to how to proceed in   relation to matters of finance, she should have consulted her boss as per her   Terms and Conditions of Employment. The Complainant did receive training and   instruction on the operation of the Portal system. If she had any queries   regarding the use of this system, she should have consulted with her boss.   The sanction issued to the Complainant was reasonable taking into account all   of the circumstances of this case.

Section 13 of the Industrial   Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the   dispute.

Based on the evidence presented   by both parties at the hearing, I recommend that this complaint is not well-   founded and therefore fails.