Gross misconduct
for...@googlemail.com
A while ago each of the team leaders told each of their team that
using a mobile phone was now going to be classed as gross misconduct.
The reason being is that some (not all) people see customer's credit
card details and could be using a mobile phone to take pictures of
such details so to protect customer's data any use of a mobile phone
would be gross misconduct.
Since then they have dismissed several people for using a mobile
phone. To my knowledge none of these people were using mobile phones
to record data but were doing things like playing games, sending text
messages, etc.
What is ironic is that people sometimes write credit card numbers down
on paper (for legitimate reasons) and there's no guidelines on how
this paper should be disposed of. Some people even bring in their own
note paper and possibly take that home with them at the end of the
night.
I was looking on the Acas website about gross misconduct and they list
examples such as theft, fraud, serious breach of confidence. I was
wondering if a company could class using a mobile phone as gross
misconduct?
What I believe is, the company is taking advantage of the fact that
they're employing generally unskilled and uneducated people who have
no idea about their employment rights and can use this fact as a way
of shedding unwanted people (whether redundant or disliked) with very
little chance of seeing them at a tribunal. What protection is given
to this vulnerable group of people?
Janitor of Lunacy
<for...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:cf8b58f9-fd9d-49c8...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I work in a call centre.
>
> A while ago each of the team leaders told each of their team that
> using a mobile phone was now going to be classed as gross misconduct.
> The reason being is that some (not all) people see customer's credit
> card details and could be using a mobile phone to take pictures of
> such details so to protect customer's data any use of a mobile phone
> would be gross misconduct.
My experience of call centres is that only three types of people can
actually see the full card details; those who enter them initially, fraud
prevention teams, and technical staff with full access to the financial
databases. Of these, only the first type present a substantial risk of
fraud, and systematic abuse is easily detected (and has been, by me, on
several occasions). The fraud investigators and developers with access to
the financial databases are required to pass a full CRB check.
> Since then they have dismissed several people for using a mobile
> phone. To my knowledge none of these people were using mobile phones
> to record data but were doing things like playing games, sending text
> messages, etc.
The company can define gross misconduct however it likes as long as its
employees are aware of this. In a situation where data is at risk of being
fraudulently used, a ban on mobile phones in the workplace does not seem
unreasonable to me.
> What is ironic is that people sometimes write credit card numbers down
> on paper (for legitimate reasons) and there's no guidelines on how
> this paper should be disposed of. Some people even bring in their own
> note paper and possibly take that home with them at the end of the
> night.
There should be guidelines; I have advised a local call centre on fraud
prevention; one of their defences is the provision of shredders and secure
waste containers, the contents of which are also shredded, plus the CRB
checks mentioned above. It is also a sackable offence (again, as gross
misconduct) to remove customer data in any form from the premises, and
random checks are conducted.
> I was looking on the Acas website about gross misconduct and they list
> examples such as theft, fraud, serious breach of confidence. I was
> wondering if a company could class using a mobile phone as gross
> misconduct?
See above.
> What I believe is, the company is taking advantage of the fact that
> they're employing generally unskilled and uneducated people who have
> no idea about their employment rights and can use this fact as a way
> of shedding unwanted people (whether redundant or disliked) with very
> little chance of seeing them at a tribunal. What protection is given
> to this vulnerable group of people?
The normal ones.
for...@googlemail.com
> My experience of call centres is that only three types of people can
> actually see the full card details; those who enter them initially, fraud
> prevention teams, and technical staff with full access to the financial
> databases. Of these, only the first type present a substantial risk of
> fraud, and systematic abuse is easily detected (and has been, by me, on
> several occasions). The fraud investigators and developers with access to
> the financial databases are required to pass a full CRB check.
That is very similar to how it works at my work place.
> The company can define gross misconduct however it likes as long as its
> employees are aware of this.
Surely if this were true then companies could simply create a very
broad definition of gross misconduct (e.g. being late, not reaching
targets). They would then be free to turn a blind eye to desirable
staff being late but if they take a dislike to someone or don't have
enough work they could at any time pull up records going back years to
find one instance of lateness and dismiss them.
Why are there laws about giving three warnings when there's such an
obvious loophole?
> In a situation where data is at risk of being
> fraudulently used, a ban on mobile phones in the workplace does not seem
> unreasonable to me.
A ban isn't unreasonable, but my question was about dismissal / gross
misconduct.
You said that only a few types of people have access to credit card
details. Do you think that dismissing people is reasonable even if
they don't have access to such data?
> > What is ironic is that people sometimes write credit card numbers down
> > on paper (for legitimate reasons) and there's no guidelines on how
> > this paper should be disposed of. Some people even bring in their own
> > note paper and possibly take that home with them at the end of the
> > night.
>
> There should be guidelines; I have advised a local call centre on fraud
> prevention; one of their defences is the provision of shredders and secure
> waste containers, the contents of which are also shredded, plus the CRB
> checks mentioned above.
There are secure waste containers with locks on them but IMO
management aren't very proactive about telling people about them and
ensuring they're used.
> It is also a sackable offence (again, as gross
> misconduct) to remove customer data in any form from the premises, and
> random checks are conducted.
I've no doubt that people would be dismissed for doing this. But the
efforts made towards educating people about disposing/storing paper
with customer data is low in comparison.
It seems to me that there's a very high focus on mobile phones rather
than overall protection of data.
Janitor of Lunacy
news:dc2e8924-345c-44af...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> The company can define gross misconduct however it likes as long as its
>> employees are aware of this.
>
> Surely if this were true then companies could simply create a very
> broad definition of gross misconduct (e.g. being late, not reaching
> targets). They would then be free to turn a blind eye to desirable
> staff being late but if they take a dislike to someone or don't have
> enough work they could at any time pull up records going back years to
> find one instance of lateness and dismiss them.
>
> Why are there laws about giving three warnings when there's such an
> obvious loophole?
Three warnings does not apply to gross misconduct, which is sackable on a
first offence.
I doubt if a tribunal would regard a definition of lateness as being gross
misconduct unless the company's function was such that lateness could
seriously compromise its operation.
>> In a situation where data is at risk of being
>> fraudulently used, a ban on mobile phones in the workplace does not seem
>> unreasonable to me.
>
> A ban isn't unreasonable, but my question was about dismissal / gross
> misconduct.
If the company wants to mimimise its risk of fraud by banning certain
activities, IMO it's entitled to do so. In the call centre I am familiar
with, use of mobile phones was banned in the workplace during working hours,
but because it had the potential to distract from serving customers, not
because of fraud, and was not classed as gross misconduct.
> You said that only a few types of people have access to credit card
> details. Do you think that dismissing people is reasonable even if
> they don't have access to such data?
Call centre workers who merely process card payments normally do not see the
full card details; so even if they did photograph them, the only use to
which that data could sensibly be put was "identity theft", and that is a
different way of committing crime which is not limited to call centres. But
from the company's point of view, there's no reason why they shouldn't seek
to minimise that too, to maintain customer confidence.
> There are secure waste containers with locks on them but IMO
> management aren't very proactive about telling people about them and
> ensuring they're used.
They should do so.
>> It is also a sackable offence (again, as gross
>> misconduct) to remove customer data in any form from the premises, and
>> random checks are conducted.
>
> I've no doubt that people would be dismissed for doing this. But the
> efforts made towards educating people about disposing/storing paper
> with customer data is low in comparison.
I had to go through the five weeks CSA training just so I could understand
what call centre workers do before I settled into my full-time work. Of
that, one hour was devoted to fraud prevention, so, yes, it should be given
more prominence.
> It seems to me that there's a very high focus on mobile phones rather
> than overall protection of data.
As above, it distracts from the purpose of working; call centre resources
are tightly targeted towards customer service (in theory), so any diversion
from that is a reduction in performance levels.
Bottom line is, they pay you, so they can make the rules.
Andy
news:cf8b58f9-fd9d-49c8...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> What is ironic is that people sometimes write credit card numbers down
> on paper (for legitimate reasons) and there's no guidelines on how
> this paper should be disposed of. Some people even bring in their own
> note paper and possibly take that home with them at the end of the
> night.
My Bro-in-law works in a tax office where phones are banned but from a
different reason.
Phones. MP3 players, PDAs, flash drives etc are banned because of the chance
of using them for mass storage and therefore for the risk of them being used
to steal large amounts of data.
The mobile phone rule is made clear up front and is not unreasonable.
Had they said that you are not permitted blue underwear or must remain
incommunicado while at work then this could be regarded as unreasonable but
I cannot see that banning phones is an issue.
Andy
Aidy
> databases are required to pass a full CRB check.
Not really :) I used to have over 10,000,000 credit card details a mere
"select *" away and required no such checks, ditto most of my work
colleagues. They did eventually tie down access to the "live" databases,
but you could still freely access the backup database which was a mere 24
hours behind.
In response to the OP, I think it is quite indicative of today's society
where people feel that their employer telling them not to use their mobile
during the working day is unreasonable.
Simon Zerafa
It would seem to me that using this as a excuse for gross misconduct is a
bit thin. I understand the need for data security but sacking someone on a
first offence for this seems over the top.
I wonder what an Industrial Tribunal would say about this? Would this be
conidered contructive dismissal?
This could be a serious offence possibly with a written warning would seem
to be in order and then perhaps suspension from work for a period for a
second offence. Then perhaps you could concider this gross misconduct based
on the inability to follow data protection instructions.
In addition employers should provide a landline telephone number so staff
can be contacted in an emergency to reduce one possible need for a mobile
phone in the first place.
If the presence of a mobile phone / storage devices was deemed to be that
critical then they should be stored securely outside the working area and
only accessable during breaks etc.
Kind Regards
Simon
Janitor of Lunacy
news:13qjda6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
>
> It would seem to me that using this as a excuse for gross misconduct is a
> bit thin. I understand the need for data security but sacking someone on a
> first offence for this seems over the top.
>
> I wonder what an Industrial Tribunal would say about this? Would this be
> conidered contructive dismissal?
No.
> This could be a serious offence possibly with a written warning would seem
> to be in order and then perhaps suspension from work for a period for a
> second offence. Then perhaps you could concider this gross misconduct
> based on the inability to follow data protection instructions.
"Could be"? "perhaps"? "perhaps"?
If it falls outside gross misconduct, the normal procedures apply: verbal
warnings, written warnings etc.
There's no "halfway house".
> In addition employers should provide a landline telephone number so staff
> can be contacted in an emergency to reduce one possible need for a mobile
> phone in the first place.
In my experience, they do. People can call the reception desk, which will
then forward the call to the CSA's team manager, who will then, if
necessary, inform the CSA. There is no need to have a mobile phone with you
in a call centre while working.
> If the presence of a mobile phone / storage devices was deemed to be that
> critical then they should be stored securely outside the working area and
> only accessable during breaks etc.
And (a) who is legally responsible if one goes missing? (b) how can the
expense of providing, say, lockers be justified when there is an easier
solution? and (c) breaks in call centres are typically short, say 15 minutes
and 30 minutes. Would people want the overhead of retrieving and replacing
their mobiles, which would eat into those breaks? I don't think so.
NicHughes
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It would seem to me that using this as a excuse for gross misconduct is a
> bit thin. I understand the need for data security but sacking someone on a
> first offence for this seems over the top.
>
Only if the tribunal felt the measure to be unreasonable - but as this
is pretty common practice in workplaces with potential issues of
security or fraud I'd be very surprised if any tribunal so ruled from
the facts in the OP.
> I wonder what an Industrial Tribunal would say about this? Would this be
> conidered contructive dismissal?
>
Very, very unlikely and even if they did so rule it would almost
certainly fail to stand up on appeal.
> This could be a serious offence possibly with a written warning would seem
> to be in order
Violating anti-fraud rules is not something you would usually get a
series of warnings for.
---
Nic
Jethro
> > The fraud investigators and developers with access to the financial
> > databases are required to pass a full CRB check.
>
> Not really :) I used to have over 10,000,000 credit card details a mere
> "select *" away and required no such checks, ditto most of my work
> colleagues. They did eventually tie down access to the "live" databases,
> but you could still freely access the backup database which was a mere 24
> hours behind.
When I worked in the financial world, only 2 DBAs had access to live
data. Developers had to use a "scrambled" database, where key details
were rewritten...
bealoid
news:39GdnQanRZOmFDTa...@bt.com:
[snip]
> In response to the OP, I think it is quite indicative of today's
> society where people feel that their employer telling them not to use
> their mobile during the working day is unreasonable.
They might have been using the phones during a tea break?
I do wonder what they would have happened if they sacked a mobile phone
user and it turned out there wasn't a camera on the phone?
peterwn
>
> The company can define gross misconduct however it likes as long as its
> employees are aware of this. In a situation where data is at risk of being
> fraudulently used, a ban on mobile phones in the workplace does not seem
> unreasonable to me.
>
Since a unit of AVIVA got fined a million for unsatisfactory call
centre safeguards, who can blame employers for being very careful.
A safety officer caught an employee smoking in a hazardous area. He
asked HR to hire the employee for gross misconduct but HR insisted on
proper procedures.
The safety officer went back to the employee and said 'you are lucky,
HR is giving you two more opportunities to blow up the plant, and if
you have not succeeded by then, they will fire you'.
nightjar
"bealoid" <sig...@bealoid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3CB097AE...@194.117.143.38...
My contract entitles me to a free new phone every year and, when I did
upgrade recently (my previous phone had failed to bounce when it hit a
concrete floor), I couldn't find a phone without a camera. It seems to me to
be a particularly useless feature when I routinely carry a 7 megapixel
pocket camera, so I did look for one without.
Colin Bignell
Aidy
Then they can do so in a designated staff area.
bealoid
news:tL2dnfaQgfs9TTfa...@bt.com:
>> They might have been using the phones during a tea break?
>
> Then they can do so in a designated staff area.
Fair enough.
bealoid
news:VKudnTe6Y9i...@giganews.com:
> "bealoid" <sig...@bealoid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A3CB097AE...@194.117.143.38...
[snip]
>> I do wonder what they would have happened if they sacked a mobile
>> phone user and it turned out there wasn't a camera on the phone?
>
> My contract entitles me to a free new phone every year and, when I did
> upgrade recently (my previous phone had failed to bounce when it hit a
> concrete floor), I couldn't find a phone without a camera. It seems to
> me to be a particularly useless feature when I routinely carry a 7
> megapixel pocket camera, so I did look for one without.
It frustrates me that all phones are roughly similar, and when a new one
gets released all the other companies do a "me too" design.
There's a niche in the market for a really nice *phone*, without MP3
player, camera, web interface, etc. It seems odd that there's phones with
MP3 players, but not answer phones on board - forcing people to use
expensive answer phone services of their contract provider.
Jethro
> There's a niche in the market for a really nice *phone*, without MP3
> player, camera, web interface, etc. It seems odd that there's phones with
> MP3 players, but not answer phones on board - forcing people to use
> expensive answer phone services of their contract provider.
I think you've answered your own question there
Max Demian
wrote:
>There's a niche in the market for a really nice *phone*, without MP3
>player, camera, web interface, etc. It seems odd that there's phones with
>MP3 players, but not answer phones on board - forcing people to use
>expensive answer phone services of their contract provider.
Virgin Mobile don't charge anything for their voicemail service.
An answerphone on a mobile would only work while the phone is switched
on (and at a location capable of reception).
--
Max Demian
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>There's a niche in the market for a really nice *phone*, without MP3
>>player, camera, web interface, etc. It seems odd that there's phones
>>with MP3 players, but not answer phones on board - forcing people to use
>>expensive answer phone services of their contract provider.
> Virgin Mobile don't charge anything for their voicemail service.
On contract, aren't they all?
> An answerphone on a mobile would only work while the phone is switched
> on (and at a location capable of reception).
Indeed.
For a fiver a month, there's also Spinvox - converts the message to text
and emails/SMSs it through. Very impressive indeed.
Janitor of Lunacy
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:foerd4$u0e$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Max Demian (Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>>There's a niche in the market for a really nice *phone*, without MP3
>>>player, camera, web interface, etc. It seems odd that there's phones
>>>with MP3 players, but not answer phones on board - forcing people to use
>>>expensive answer phone services of their contract provider.
>
>> Virgin Mobile don't charge anything for their voicemail service.
>
> On contract, aren't they all?
No, VM's PAYG voicemail is free too.
>> An answerphone on a mobile would only work while the phone is switched
>> on (and at a location capable of reception).
Voicemail can be left for a mobile while it is switched off and is retained
in normal circs for up to 72 hours; Voicemail Plus (which costs a little
extra) has longer retention and higher capacity.
PDR
"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:84960314-edf9-457b...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> He asked HR to hire the employee for gross misconduct [...]
Surely in this case the Gross Misconduct would be part of the job
description, rendering it difficult to sack the employee without other
grounds?
PDR
mickygill
wrote:
It would not matter: a condition of working there - no mobiles
allowed. Take a mobile in to work - get the sack instantly.
What's wrong with that - sounds good to me?
(I must admit - slightly worse - but I nearly crapped myself once when
I realised that I had taken a lighter in to a refinery by accident. I
made a quick excuse that I needed to go out to my car and left it
there - that would definitely have been gross misconduct and "sorry I
forgot" would rightly not have been accepted)
Alang
Bit more than gross misconduct. IIRC it was a criminal offence.
--