PDA

View Full Version : Westpac to Sack Staff Member over the Missing Money



pctek
20-07-2009, 09:22 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2608720/Bank-worker-fears-for-job

Metla
20-07-2009, 09:27 AM
good, who the hell thinks they should get away with a 10 million dollar mistake?

paulw
20-07-2009, 09:30 AM
I think it's a crock if this person gets fired for a Westpac system that can't pick up a mistake like this before it goes thru. How come the banks systems didn't flag it next day?? ASB sure as hell does.. Guess some poor female bank clerk will be the scapegoat for a Ozzy banks slack processes..

Deane F
20-07-2009, 10:17 AM
I agree with paulw - any system that allows a $9.9M mistake means the responsibility lies heavily on the bank. After all, the bank won't be saying to it's shareholders, "hey we fired the employee responsible - it's all their fault!"

To some extent or other the bank has a responsibility to it's employees too - and the woman's supervisor apparently looked it over, thought "hmm" and then did nothing.

Sue
20-07-2009, 10:32 AM
It was a decimal point mistake which should have been picked up by the supervisor and the system. Supervisor gets a written warning but the person concerned faces the sack after 30 years in the banking business.

Reason: Easy scapegoat & more profit for the Aussie bank by replacing a mature female worker with a minimum wage school leaver.

pctek
20-07-2009, 11:18 AM
The Star-Times revealed in May that Westpac only discovered the error following an anonymous phone tip, rather than through its own systems or detection work.

It is understood a computer system flag was earlier raised at the bank over the size of the overdraft and a conversation did take place about it between the bank employee and her manager, but in an apparent case of miscommunication the matter was put aside and the error was not corrected.

Employment law specialist Gordon Anderson, of Victoria University, said the worker might have a case for unjustified dismissal if it could be shown that similar errors were common and other workers had not lost their jobs because of it. The frequency of the errors could be crucial, he said. If the only differing factor Westpac was relying on was the fact that the customer had absconded with the money, it might have trouble justifying its actions.

Westpac says such errors are "very, very rare" but checks by the Star-Times found half a dozen similar reported cases in the past few years, including one where a woman was accidentally credited with $62m by the BNZ.

the_bogan
20-07-2009, 12:40 PM
I'm wondering if the employee involved has got so stressed that she is unable to work anymore. There's a good chance that she could be given a bit of compo and let go.
I haven't seen any comment from the bank that they are going to sack her. It's all from the union/employee.

R2x1
20-07-2009, 12:44 PM
You would believe a bank? Incredible.

prefect
20-07-2009, 12:46 PM
I dont think the bank will sack her for 2 reasons.
1. Negative publicity for bank
2. Its almost impossible to fire someone without warning the employment tribunal would reinstate her .
Business not far from here had in contract that drinking then driving company vehicles (they are drainage company) was a sackable offence.
When they fired him the tribunal sent him back to work.
Not sure if assault or stealing is grounds nowdays the only way to get rid of them is to give written warnings and follow labor dept guidelines to the letter.

PaulD
20-07-2009, 02:56 PM
2. Its almost impossible to fire someone without warning the employment tribunal would reinstate her .
Business not far from here had in contract that drinking then driving company vehicles (they are drainage company) was a sackable offence.
When they fired him the tribunal sent him back to work.


So how did they stuff up the dismissal?

" However, applicant knew driving company car with excess breath alcohol level constituted serious misconduct under employment agreement and no warning was necessary - Authority found fair and reasonable employer would conclude summary dismissal appropriate sanction - Given any procedural defects were minor respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer - Application dismissed - Customer Care Officer

Result: Application dismissed "

http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/publications/ecs/jan-feb2009/ecs-jan-09_15.html

Greg
20-07-2009, 06:34 PM
My brother is a lawyer. He had a client he defended who was charged with criminal intent or some such thing.

This guy went into the local branch of his bank, filled out a withdrawal form, and took the cash.

The problem... he was given $5000 instead of the $50 he requested, which of course he didn't have in his account.

The prosecution claimed he knew exactly what he was receiving, and therefore it was essentially theft.

My brother's client said he had no idea of the amount he received, as he immediately went out and bought cannabis with, what he thought was 50 bucks.

Prosecution used as evidence the bank's video surveilance footage to show that the guy was looking closely as the female teller counted and handed over the cash.

My brother countered that, because the teller was rather well endowed in the chest area, that he was looking at the woman's breasts, not the cash.

The guy got off the charge!

The teller was subsequently fired.

Metla
20-07-2009, 07:04 PM
Beats me how people think they can just give away a companies money, and then blame the company.

The 10 million dollar chick should have resigned in shame.

prefect
20-07-2009, 07:06 PM
So how did they stuff up the dismissal?

" However, applicant knew driving company car with excess breath alcohol level constituted serious misconduct under employment agreement and no warning was necessary - Authority found fair and reasonable employer would conclude summary dismissal appropriate sanction - Given any procedural defects were minor respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer - Application dismissed - Customer Care Officer

Result: Application dismissed "

http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/publications/ecs/jan-feb2009/ecs-jan-09_15.html

The guy wasnt over excess piss level he wasnt even drunk but he had some drinks and drove company vehicle.
Boss of company is 7th day adventist and is just anti piss.
Contract said no drinking and driving but its not a first time sackable offence may not even be sackable after second.
I suppose driving after a few drinks is not a crime and thats how he got off.

prefect
20-07-2009, 07:14 PM
My brother is a lawyer. He had a client he defended who was charged with criminal intent or some such thing.

This guy went into the local branch of his bank, filled out a withdrawal form, and took the cash.

The problem... he was given $5000 instead of the $50 he requested, which of course he didn't have in his account.

The prosecution claimed he knew exactly what he was receiving, and therefore it was essentially theft.

My brother's client said he had no idea of the amount he received, as he immediately went out and bought cannabis with, what he thought was 50 bucks.

Prosecution used as evidence the bank's video surveilance footage to show that the guy was looking closely as the female teller counted and handed over the cash.

My brother countered that, because the teller was rather well endowed in the chest area, that he was looking at the woman's breasts, not the cash.

The guy got off the charge!

The teller was subsequently fired.

Quite believable, when ever I am perving at nice big breasts my pathetic mind turns to jelly.
Could have been me judge got it right.

roddy_boy
20-07-2009, 10:32 PM
I agree with paulw - any system that allows a $9.9M mistake means the responsibility lies heavily on the bank. After all, the bank won't be saying to it's shareholders, "hey we fired the employee responsible - it's all their fault!"

To some extent or other the bank has a responsibility to it's employees too - and the woman's supervisor apparently looked it over, thought "hmm" and then did nothing.

:groan:

Deane F
20-07-2009, 11:55 PM
:groan:

I'm sorry roddy_boy. That shouldn't have crept in there.

I was tired and emotional after discussing the Nigerian situation all afternoon.

paulw
21-07-2009, 09:31 AM
Beats me how people think they can just give away a companies money, and then blame the company.

The 10 million dollar chick should have resigned in shame.

Yeah and you never make a mistake??

Metla
21-07-2009, 09:46 AM
Yeah and you never make a mistake??

I have done,and no doubt will again. And I have lost my employment for it once or twice. And rightly so.

Cicero
21-07-2009, 09:51 AM
I don't think the bank will sack her for 2 reasons.
1. Negative publicity for bank
2. Its almost impossible to fire someone without warning the employment tribunal would reinstate her .
Business not far from here had in contract that drinking then driving company vehicles (they are drainage company) was a sackable offence.
When they fired him the tribunal sent him back to work.
Not sure if assault or stealing is grounds nowdays the only way to get rid of them is to give written warnings and follow labour dept guidelines to the letter.

With luck national will rectify this rediculous situation

Deane F
21-07-2009, 10:57 AM
With luck national will rectify this rediculous situation

What ridiculous situation? Prefect's facts are completely wrong. You can fire people without warning. Reasons for summary dismissal are written into every contract - usually for things classed as serious misconduct - and if there is a serious safety issue involved that endangers the worker or others then summary dismissal is justified too.

bk T
21-07-2009, 11:00 AM
...
The guy got off the charge!

The teller was subsequently fired.

In this case it's the teller's mistake but in the multi-million dollar "error' I strongly think that it was the bank's fault. Westpac is well known for NOT having a proper system. :D:D

Metla
21-07-2009, 11:13 AM
and if there is a serious safety issue involved that endangers the worker or others then summary dismissal is justified too.

Except for the fact the dismissed employee can challenge the dismissal based on the fact the company should have had systems in place to stop them endangering other people (and this is what OSH believes), which is exactly the same argument you have put foward for the chump who gave away 10 million dollars.

Sweep
21-07-2009, 11:15 AM
My brother is a lawyer. He had a client he defended who was charged with criminal intent or some such thing.

This guy went into the local branch of his bank, filled out a withdrawal form, and took the cash.

The problem... he was given $5000 instead of the $50 he requested, which of course he didn't have in his account.

The prosecution claimed he knew exactly what he was receiving, and therefore it was essentially theft.

My brother's client said he had no idea of the amount he received, as he immediately went out and bought cannabis with, what he thought was 50 bucks.

Prosecution used as evidence the bank's video surveilance footage to show that the guy was looking closely as the female teller counted and handed over the cash.

My brother countered that, because the teller was rather well endowed in the chest area, that he was looking at the woman's breasts, not the cash.

The guy got off the charge!

The teller was subsequently fired.

So when this person bought the $50.00 cannabis package he didn't get change from the $5,000.00? Must have had his mind addled or was the drug dealer a woman with rather large ones as well?

PaulD
21-07-2009, 11:41 AM
So when this person bought the $50.00 cannabis package he didn't get change from the $5,000.00? Must have had his mind addled or was the drug dealer a woman with rather large ones as well?

The story doesn't stack up on several points. Even if the teller couldn't pick the difference between "fifty" and "five thousand", if the account didn't have that much how did the system let her hand out the money? My last experience with counter service was pretty much like an ATM with a human to hand you the cash (after finding enough notes).

prefect
21-07-2009, 02:10 PM
Believe me sacking someone in New Zealand nowdays is nigh impossible unless following labour dept guidelines to the exact letter.
She can not be sacked for this offence, not that I am saying she shouldnt be.

Sweep
21-07-2009, 03:18 PM
good, who the hell thinks they should get away with a 10 million dollar mistake?

The treasury does it on a regular basis in my view.

Greg
21-07-2009, 04:54 PM
So when this person bought the $50.00 cannabis package he didn't get change from the $5,000.00? Must have had his mind addled or was the drug dealer a woman with rather large ones as well?
The guy clearly knew he had received $4950 too much. So you can bet he didn't hand it all over to the drug dealer.

The issue was simply that the prosecutor couldn't prove that he was culpable, so the judge had to determine that he was not guilty.

prefect
23-07-2009, 04:29 PM
My brother is a lawyer. He had a client he defended who was charged with criminal intent or some such thing.

This guy went into the local branch of his bank, filled out a withdrawal form, and took the cash.

The problem... he was given $5000 instead of the $50 he requested, which of course he didn't have in his account.

The prosecution claimed he knew exactly what he was receiving, and therefore it was essentially theft.

My brother's client said he had no idea of the amount he received, as he immediately went out and bought cannabis with, what he thought was 50 bucks.

Prosecution used as evidence the bank's video surveilance footage to show that the guy was looking closely as the female teller counted and handed over the cash.

My brother countered that, because the teller was rather well endowed in the chest area, that he was looking at the woman's breasts, not the cash.

The guy got off the charge!

The teller was subsequently fired.

Check this out and tell me if distraction wasnt a fair enough defence.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Scarlett+Johansson&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLJ_en-GB&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=GdhnSrbjLIyQsgP1zuWzBw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1

wratterus
23-07-2009, 04:36 PM
Surely the bank teller would not be wearing a moist bikini though...I still say no excuse. :drool

robbyp
23-07-2009, 05:19 PM
This is a good story about how well they treat their cusomters, and the trust they have in them. Amazing that these banks could lend nearly 100% mortgages to people to buy a house and have never borrowed before, but someone like this can't get a relatively small mortgage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2667215/190-000-withdrawn-in-20-bills