Dealing with Absconding Staff over Christmas

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 12, 2018

The Christmas period tends to bring out the best- and worst - in people. It is a time of year filled with parties, merriment, laughter, great weather and a lot of socialising. 

But Christmas can also be a challenging time in the workplace, as employees may engage in inappropriate conduct at work related social events, may suffer the after-effects of excessive partying or may be generally less productive or effective than usual. 

It can also result in staff not turning up altogether. We take a look at what employers should do if staff abscond from their roles over the end of year period.

Absenteeism, absconding and desertion: what's the difference? 

Many workers may be tempted to add to their public holidays by taking additional days off after Christmas, especially if they feel that they have been unfairly denied leave over the Festive Season. 

Workers 'pulling sickies' without consent is a type of absenteeism. In order to avoid situations where staff are calling in sick for less than legitimate reasons, employers should remind staff that the usual sick leave policies apply over Christmas. 

Employees must obtain doctor's certificates or other acceptable evidence of genuine illness, even though it may be an inconvenient time for them to do so. It should also be reiterated that failing to attend work after key social functions - such as the annual Christmas party - will be frowned upon and could result in disciplinary consequences. 

Unauthorised leave is a serious enough matter, but what happens if the absence drags on? An employee 'absconds' from work in circumstances where they have been absent, without explanation, for sufficiently long that the employer is entitled to infer that they have no intention of returning. This would apply if the employee has failed to attend for a number of days, without making contact with the employer (who has been unable to make contact in return). 

In cases of desertion, an employee implicitly or explicitly demonstrates that they have no intention of returning to work. Advising co-workers that they will not come back from leave, emptying their work station of personal belongings, and failing to respond to attempts to contact them are all signs of desertion.  

what steps should an employer take?

Although it is generally clear by implication that an employee has no intention of returning to work, employers must still follow due dismissal procedures to ensure that the employee is terminated correctly and fairly. 

This requires several documented attempts to contact the employee. Initial contact should be by phone, followed up by written correspondence notifying that the employee's position will be terminated if they do not explain their actions and return to work immediately. Written correspondence should be sent both to a personal email if possible, and the employee's registered postal address.

what the fair work commission says

A Fair Work Commission decision handed down in January 2018 noted that an employee's absence from work, without consent or notification, for three working days or more constituted sufficient evidence of abandonment. 

If an employee has not provided a satisfactory explanation for their absence within 14 days of their last attendance at work, an employee will be deemed to have formally abandoned their employment and their position will be considered to have been duly terminated. 

why do employees abscond?  

Although the reasons for employees absconding are many and varied, some examples are:

  • They have obtained employment elsewhere (and accordingly do not feel that they have any need for positive references);
  • They are dealing with personal issues which exceed their desire or ability to be present at work over the holiday period; 
  • They feel that they have engaged in particularly embarrassing or career limiting behaviours over the festive season. 

In particular, the Christmas period often makes people re-evaluate their life decisions and take stock of what they want (and don't want) in the New Year. Terminating a working situation that doesn't suit them, could potentially be at the top of their list. 

How to keep staff engaged and avoid staff going AWOL

Although most organisations strive to be an employer of choice throughout the year, it is important for staff to be reminded at the end of the year that they are valued, and their hard work has been appreciated. 

Celebrate the achievements of the past year, and if appropriate, reward staff with a festive bonus. Organisations should also strive to offer a fun, slightly more relaxed environment over the festive season. This might include offering extra snacks in staff common areas, and holding informal social events. This can carry over into the New Year, to help ease the way back into work. Another suggestion is to allow staff to dress casually in January and keep things fun with a holiday photo competition or barbecue lunch. 

Employers should approach the festive season proactively, reminding staff of the conduct expected of them, and the requirements around leave during this period. If your organisation encounters an issue with staff, WISE investigates matters of misconduct and can assist in establishing the facts. Contact us for an obligation-free investigation quote.  

Procurement and Corruption - The Warning Signs

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Effective procurement requires the ability to foster productive relationships and to secure the best possible terms within a contract or project. However, there can be a fine line between savvy negotiation and a gradual descent into corrupt and/or fraudulent behaviour. 

Despite robust legal and policy requirements relating to procurement activity, fraud is nevertheless an ever-present problem within the supply chain sector. We examine some of the danger signs of corruption to consider within any procurement arrangement.

procurement fraud

Corruption and fraud go hand in hand. In procurement work, tender processes can be circumvented or omitted altogether, documents altered subtly to benefit internal operatives, and bids and contracts massaged to create mutually beneficial gains. Fraud can begin with lazy practices or commercial white lies, growing to a tipping point where procurement officers enable a status quo of daily corruption. By favouring existing contractors or accepting inducements to deal with others, procurement divisions can become riddled with fraudulent and self-serving behaviour.

red flags of corruption 

So what are some of the conditions that enable procurement fraud? Time and money lie at the heart of procurement activities, and both can usefully serve as red flags for possible corruption. Shorter-than-usual timeframes for tender processes can be a tell-tale sign of a strategy to reduce competitive bids and give favour to a particular supplier. 

Similarly, the acceptance of a higher bid with no meritorious justification can and should ring alarm bells. Other red flags include: poor communication protocols regarding procurement management; a lack of well-documented processes and outcomes concerning payment agreements and project costings.

a complex framework

In NSW, the procurement policy framework provides an extremely complex set of legal, governance and administrative requirements around procurement activities. 

While this has brought various authoritative sources of information into one structure, the framework does place considerable administrative demands on staff at the coalface. 

Management should understand and champion the framework, providing effective training and support to staff around ongoing issues of transparency and integrity.

Solutions to fraud and corruption

Establishing the right culture is the number one weapon against corruption. This includes fostering a work environment where transparency and integrity are at the core of business-as-usual. Staff training should be in depth and ongoing, with refreshers provided at regular intervals. Organisations need to audit and assess current internal controls, taking nothing for granted when designing mechanisms for combatting fraud. 

Anti-corruption controls already in place must be monitored for strength and efficacy at regular intervals. When red flags go up, a fraud response plan should be accessible, relevant and understood by the entire procurement division. Further, a thorough knowledge of current and potential suppliers should be developed and maintained, including detailed information on supplier capacity and sub-contracting. 

Perhaps most importantly - yet often overlooked - the procurement process itself must be monitored each step of the way, both for individual contracts and in terms of ongoing operations within the procurement division. A further enhancement possibility exists within business analysis programs; harnessing the power of data can provide an incredible means of monitoring procurement processes, picking up any suspicious activities through detailed analytics.

hear it on the grapevine

Grapevine is owned and operated by WISE Workplace. In 2016, we launched Grapevine to enhance the way our clients manage their businesses. The Grapevine Confidential Whistleblower Hotline provides employees with a safe and secure environment to report misconduct, enabling insightful management of complaints and the ability to bring about real cultural change and reduce risk. 

The Grapevine call centre is located in Queensland and staffed by trusted and experienced operators. The call centre is manned 24/7 and receives over 1,000 calls per week. For a free quote, call WISE today. And should you wish to learn more about methods for assessing potential fraud within your current procurement practices, we will be happy to assist.  

Why Employers Can't Afford to Ignore Procedural Fairness

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, August 01, 2018

It is important for employers to keep procedural fairness top of mind when conducting workplace investigations or taking disciplinary action.

Failing to do so can result in terminations being deemed unfair, as the recent Fair Work Commission decision of Nicholas Jarmain v Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 3255 (14 June 2018) shows. 

background of the case 

Linfox Armaguard dismissed casual employee Nicholas Jarmain in October 2017 for serious misconduct. While the Fair Work Commission found the termination was justified, it determined that Mr Jarmain had been unfairly dismissed due to insufficient procedural fairness.

Mr Jarmain was dismissed after a client complained that he was "overly engaged in interaction and discussion" and generally inappropriate with staff members and customers of the client.

In response to the allegations, Mr Jarmain was asked to undergo an interview with a security officer and a union support person present. Explanations for his behaviour were sought (and his answers recorded) during the interview, and Mr Jarmain was then suspended from duty.

At a meeting three weeks later, Mr Jarmain was given further opportunity to explain the circumstances giving rise to the complaints against him. However, as his preferred union delegate was injured and unable to attend, the employer substituted their own preferred union official for that meeting.

The employer terminated Mr Jarmain's casual employment the next day, citing wilful and deliberate breaches of safety and security procedures. 

Breaches of procedural fairness

In the interest of procedural fairness, Mr Jarmain's employer should have advised him what claims were being investigated before asking him to participate in a recorded interview.

This was considered to be particularly egregious given that the employer is a big company with sufficient access to HR professionals. HR could (and indeed should) have been relied upon to ensure that Mr Jarmain was afforded procedural fairness when facing disciplinary action.

While the employer's reasons for dismissing Mr Jarmain were "sound, defensible and well-founded", especially given the job involves loaded weapons, the Commission concluded that the flaws in procedure, such as failing to provide any formal warnings or reprimands, were significant. 

The Commission determined that Mr Jarmain had not been given sufficient notification of the circumstances surrounding the complaints against him, or indeed the events giving rise to the complaints - and that he had effectively been ambushed, without sufficient information to defend himself against the claims. 

This meant that both Mr Jarmain's interview and ultimate dismissal were contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness.

Additional failures included the employer selecting the support person assisting Mr Jarmain in the second interview (as opposed to permitting the employee to pick his support person). By making such a decision it was akin to removing Mr Jarmain's right to have a support person present at all.

Further, the employer should not have suspended Mr Jarmain without pay.

the final decision

Ultimately, given the nature of the industry in which Mr Jarmain was employed, Commissioner Cambridge declined to order reinstatement of the employment but ordered compensation payments to the tune of $8,592.

This case demonstrates that having a valid reason to dismiss is only one factor that is considered in unfair dismissal claims. The Commission will not hesitate to award judgments in favour of the applicant where the employment was terminated in a manner that is not procedurally fair.

If you would like to ensure your investigation process is fair, WISE provides full and supported investigation services, as well as training.