Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A customer services rep.

A financial services company

Representatives

Self

Company management

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00029701-001

16/07/2019

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Complaints Handler. His employment commenced on 11th September 2017 and ended on 17th May 2019. His salary was €2,000 per month gross.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th July 2019.

The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute.

The Complainant, as outlined in his letter of appeal contends that his dismissal was unfair and appealed this decision on the following grounds:

·         “At no point did I (a) act in bad faith or (b) breach (Respondent named) practice and procedures.”

I am neither empowered, entitled nor authorised to approve or instruct the approval of credit reports to any agent.

None of the documentation provided to me has shown that I approved or released the credit report in question.

None of the documentation provided to me – even after two meetings and many emails – has even suggested which specific procedures I have supposedly breached.

·         I do not believe ‘gross misconduct’ is at all applicable in this instance.

I do not believe that a simple misunderstanding / miscommunication which exposed the Respondent to no material risk of loss warrants this level of disciplinary action.

This seems to be a single isolated instance, with absolutely no indication of malice or intentional misconduct, and which was dealt with entirely within the bounds of standard operating procedure.

No actions were taken to prevent this report from being dispatched.

If the gravity of this situation had been so severe as to warrant a dismissal I would assume all parties involved in this investigation would have at least first-hand knowledge of what had been done to prevent this report from being released or dispatched to the consumer.

Whilst the Complainant appreciates the gravity of the failure of the verification process in the current climate he simply cannot fathom why the Respondent would pursue this as a matter of ‘gross misconduct’.

·         This is the first instance in which my work has been called into question”

The Complainant points out that he had no disciplinary issues prior to this

The Complainant accepts that there may be lessons to be learned around some of the communication issues, he feels a relatively innocuous oversight has been stoked into a confrontational situation by an inadequate investigation rushing to the worst possible judgement with little or no evidence or communication of its means.

The Complainant feels that he has been treated extremely poorly and unfairly by what he feels to be an inadequate investigation which has lacked any appropriate rationale.

The Respondent is a data information solutions company that provide data driven insights to businesses and consumers around the globe, how they can make better financial and business decisions.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent and was based in their Wexford offices.

The Respondent deals with consumers in the UK by way of providing them access to their credit reports and consumer information. A fundamental part of the business is the verification of consumers before providing them with any access to credit files or personal information. As a trusted custodian of information, we must verify before releasing any PII (personal identifiable information). The Respondent has to record all interactions with customers to ensure files and information are amended correctly.

Since a significant data breach in 2017 the Respondent organisation has worked hard to regain trust from consumers, customers and the general public.

The Respondent organisation has invested heavily in security, technology and training. Additional training was provided to all employees – security is one of the Respondent’s key strategic priorities.

As custodians of consumer data, the Respondent must always ensure that they act in the best interest of their consumers.

Security and data protection must be to the forefront of all activities. Compliance with policies and external legal and regulatory obligations are paramount to this.

The Respondent was employed as a customer services representative. In this role he would manage and handle a range of complex customer interactions (primarily calls) including complaints and escalated queries, in order to effectively address issues in a manner which ensures that the customer is fully informed and appropriately advised on steps towards resolution and associated timeframes.

To use information and resources available to investigate and resolve customer queries immediately or direct to the appropriate resolver group for further investigation / resolution. Where immediate resolution is not possible, to case-manage the resolution process and associated customer interactions ensuring that the customer is kept informed and advised in line with agreed expectations.

The agent must ensure that good customer relations are maintained and all applicable regulatory requirements are satisfied. The agent must ensure that that new and ongoing customer complaints and inquiries are handled effectively, documented and escalated appropriately with a fair outcome for the consumer in line with internal policies, procedures and processes.

The Complainant has attended training and completed a series of e-learning training in relation to his role.

On 2nd May 2019 the Complainant’s team leader wrote to him suspending him on full pay until such time as an investigation could be conducted into his alleged release of a report to a consumer without adherence to the Respondent’s security policy.

An investigation took place and on 7th May 2019 the Complainant was written to requesting that he attend a Disciplinary Hearing on 10th May 2019. The Complainant was advised that he could be accompanied by a work colleague.

On 13th May 2019 the Complainant was invited to a second investigation meeting to be held on 15th May. This meeting went ahead as scheduled. At this meeting the Complainant was asked to explain why he had authorised or overwritten the verification policy on two separate occasions. In reply the Complainant states that he was giving the consumer a “sales pitch”.

On the 17th May the Complainant attended a meeting to hear the outcome of the investigation. It was at this meeting that the Complainant was informed that the Respondent viewed his actions as gross misconduct and that they were summarily dismissing him without notice or payment in lieu of notice. The Complainant’s last day of service was 17th May 2019.

By letter dated 21st May 2019 the Complainant appealed the decision to dismiss him, the appeal was heard on 24th May 2019.

By letter dated 6th June 2019 the Complainant was informed that his appeal was not successful, this letter states:

“After listening to your case and reviewing the factual evidence of this investigation (the call transcript and private note recorded on the system), I believe this contravenes a number of Policies and legal obligations. For example – the Company Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, our Information Security policy, Conduct Risk policy, Risk Management and Compliance policy and our external legal and regulatory obligations under GDPR and FCA. Our policies state the Company’s expectations of employees in relation to how we treat our consumers, how we manage risk and how to lead with integrity. Data must be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of personal data. The Company’s verification processes cannot be overridden and is there to protect colleagues, Company as well as our consumers. The factual evidence is in direct breach of the above policies and obligations. Security must be at the forefront of everything we do. As custodians of consumer data, we must ensure at all times to protect and act in the best interest of our consumers, no matter the circumstances.

The Company’s Disciplinary policy outlines what the organisation deems as Gross Misconduct – falsification of information and breach of policy are two of the many reasons identified as Gross Misconduct within the policy.

Throughout the investigation you have stated the reasons for informing the consumer that you were “overriding” the system and were “authorising” her as manually verified were used as a sales technique. You have also indicated that telling “little white lies” is acceptable business behaviour. This is not acceptable behaviour and was misleading to the consumer.   Furthermore, the consumer also had informed you that they had not returned the required information to complete verification. At this stage, you were made aware that the consumer had not been verified, yet you did not prevent the report from being dispatched, instead, you entered a note declaring that the consumer had in fact been verified manually.

I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your contributions during your employment with the Company, however for the reasons outlined above, I am in agreement with the original decision to terminate your contract of employment with the Company. It is therefore my decision to uphold the sanction of Gross Misconduct with summary dismissal. You have now exercised your right of appeal that you are entitled to under the Company’s Disciplinary Procedure and this decision is final”.

On studying the paperwork produced at the hearing I wish to make the following comments:

1.       The letter dated 7th May starts “I am following up to my previous letter dated the 7th May regarding the investigation taking place……….”. Does the Complaints Team Leader mean her letter dated 2nd May?

2.       Letter dated the 7th May from the Complaints Team Leader invited the Complainant to a meeting on 10th May at 1.15pm. The notes from the meeting would suggest the meeting took place on 9th May 2019.

3.       The letter dated 17th May 2019 from the Complaints Team Leader to the Complainant reads as follows (third last paragraph):

“Given the investigations findings and consideration of all facts available, it is the businesses decision that you are summarily dismissed for gross misconduct …………”.

The Respondent’s representative provided a copy of the Disciplinary Policy. This policy, under the heading of Summary Dismissal quite clearly states:

Summary Dismissal may be appropriate for serious gross misconduct or gross negligence offenses. The decision to dismiss will be made by the manager chairing the disciplinary meeting. Summary dismissal means dismissal without notice, allowances or holiday pay.

In Ramphal v Department for Transport [2015] UKEAT 0352_14_0409 (4th September 2015)

Judge Serota QC held that whilst dismissing or investigating officer is entitled to seek guidance from human resources or others, such advice cannot go too far so as to interfere with the deliberations of the person designated to conduct them. Instead any such advice should be limited to matters of law and procedure and to ensuring that all necessary matters have been addressed and achieve clarity.

In this instant case the decision to dismiss was made by the “business”. This, I feel, is in breach of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Policy and I believe a breach of fair procedures.

If the business made the decision how could the Complainant have a fair and impartial appeal of the decision.

I have given this matter much consideration and decide that the complaint is well founded and I now order the Respondent to pay compensation of €7,500.00 to the Complainant.

This compensation should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

The complaint is well founded and I now order the Respondent to pay compensation of €7,500.00 to the Complainant.

This compensation should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

Unfair Dismissal.