Disciplinary for breaching company policy

A goodwill gesture that almost came with a heavy price

Retail worker Ceris certainly did not think a simple act of kindness towards her sister would ever lead to a disciplinary ordeal.

When her younger sister’s laptop broke, meaning she could not complete a university project, Ceris used her staff discount at the electrical retailer where she worked to help her sister to buy a replacement.

The employer’s discount scheme extended to immediate family members, making the purchase perfectly legitimate.

However, things took a turn when Ceris’s sister, caught in a family emergency, was unable to collect the laptop herself as planned. Instead, she sent a female friend in her place to make the purchase.

Store policy required all employee discounts to be approved by a manager. Ceris informed her manager that the purchase was for her sister, received approval, and completed the sale.

However, an anonymous colleague later reported that the person who collected the laptop was not Ceris’s sister - raising concerns about misuse of the discount.

Summoned to her manager’s office, Ceris was confronted about the sale. She explained that the laptop was indeed for her sister, but due to unforeseen circumstances, her sister had sent a friend to collect it.

The manager accused Ceris of dishonesty, claiming she had stated that the customer was her sister.

Ceris adamantly denied this, insisting she had only said the laptop was for her sister - not that she was the one making the purchase. However, Ceris was suspended from work.

Later, at a fact-finding meeting conducted during the disciplinary investigation, she made clear the purchase was legitimate and reiterated that she had never misrepresented who was collecting the item.

But the most damaging evidence against her came in the form of statements from her manager and the anonymous colleague, both of whom claimed they had heard her say the customer was her sister.

Ceris was later invited to a disciplinary hearing, warned that if the allegations of dishonesty and abuse of the discount scheme were upheld, she could face dismissal.

The letter inviting Ceris to the hearing claimed the purchase was a breach of policy, as the item was not collected by an immediate family member.

The allegation was shocking to Ceris - especially after 11 years of exemplary service.

In search of support, she contacted our Employee Support Centre to exercise her right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing by one of our experienced trade union representatives.

Our trade union rep carefully reviewed the case and found no indication of deliberate deception. At the very worst, he believed, Ceris had made a genuine mistake in allowing her sister’s friend to complete the purchase.

The employer’s discount policy stated that discounts were available for immediate family members, but it did not explicitly require the family member to be the one making the purchase.

Recognising this omission in the policy, our trade union rep would use it to challenge the allegations, as while discounts were strictly limited to immediate family members, there was no stated restriction against third-party collection.

At the disciplinary hearing, our trade union rep argued that the allegations against Ceris were unfair.

He emphasised that the policy did not expressly forbid third-party collection, making the company’s stance unreasonable. Our trade union rep highlighted that Ceris had followed the intent of the discount scheme - ensuring her sister, eligible for a discount, benefitted from the purchase.

The hearing was told her sister’s inability to collect the item herself did not remove her entitlement to the discount.

Our trade union rep pointed out the unfairness in penalising Ceris for unstated restrictions. He said that without clear guidance, she could not be expected to anticipate unwritten rules, and punishing her for such was wrong, unfair and would set a dangerous precedent.

Addressing claims that Ceris had misrepresented the customer’s identity, our trade union rep argued the misunderstanding stemmed from misinterpretation.

He presented evidence showing that several colleagues had attended Ceris’s wedding the previous year met her sister, some of whom were also familiar with her from social media.

Our trade union rep told the hearing it would therefore have been illogical for Ceris to claim the customer was her sister when many colleagues knew what she looked like.

Following the hearing, Ceris was cleared of all allegations.