| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 101569 | 2009-07-19 21:22:00 | Westpac to Sack Staff Member over the Missing Money | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 793093 | 2009-07-19 21:22:00 | www.stuff.co.nz | pctek (84) | ||
| 793094 | 2009-07-19 21:27:00 | good, who the hell thinks they should get away with a 10 million dollar mistake? | Metla (12) | ||
| 793095 | 2009-07-19 21:30:00 | 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.. | paulw (1826) | ||
| 793096 | 2009-07-19 22:17:00 | 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. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 793097 | 2009-07-19 22:32:00 | 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. |
Sue (33) | ||
| 793098 | 2009-07-19 23:18:00 | 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. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 793099 | 2009-07-20 00:40:00 | 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. |
the_bogan (9949) | ||
| 793100 | 2009-07-20 00:44:00 | You would believe a bank? Incredible. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 793101 | 2009-07-20 00:46:00 | 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. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 793102 | 2009-07-20 02:56:00 | 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 " www.ers.dol.govt.nz |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||