A member was called to a disciplinary hearing for a PNC (Procedural Non-Compliance) breach.

They had failed to fully follow and complete a process for a customer during a call, and had not cancelled and reissued the customer’s card after the customer had called to raise concerns about potential fraud on their account.

This error had led to further fraud activity and a loss of money to the customer and, therefore to the Bank.  This was considered a case of serious misconduct.

The Chair played the call for those present to hear and understand what had happened.

The member was clearly heard talking the customer through the steps she was taking and what the next steps would be – including saying she would then cancel the card and reissue,  to ensure the customer’s account was safe and under no threat of further fraud.

The member, who was an experienced member of staff, was totally honest and confirmed they knew the correct process and could not explain why she had failed to follow it on this occasion.

The manager had provided data to confirm that the member had in fact, carried out the correct process on other occasions on the same day.

The Rep then challenged the Line Manager on what they believed to be the rationale for the members ‘error’ on a call where the MOS had taken 20 minutes discussing clearly and in great detail with the customer, the process, and the next steps they would take to protect their account.  Why would they waste all that time only to fail to complete the last action needed?

The line manager stated they believed it was ‘carelessness, and an act of very poor customer service’ on the part of the MOS.

The Rep strongly challenged this, referring to the call which the Chair himself had stated was ‘text book’ apart from the ACW where the card had not been cancelled/reissued.

The Chair then questioned the manager and the member of staff to try to understand if anything had happened on that day or around the time of the call for the member to ‘lose focus’ and cause the ‘error’.

At this point, the Rep raised the fact that on the day of the call, and a few days prior, the member had been in contact with the Advance Rep about an event which the manager had arranged on site, which she was insisting the member attend in person at the business area.  NB – Due to a medical condition, the member, when working on site, used a training room which had specific equipment the member required  – this would not be available on the day of the event or in the business area.

The Rep provided the Chair with emails and text messages between the Rep and the member confirming this.  They contained comments from the member saying how stressed they were about the upcoming event, and that the manager had not replied to any of her emails or Teams messages asking for an update on her request not to attend the event but to work-from- home.

The manager had eventually responded 2 minutes before the member was due to finish for the day – confirming the work-from-home request on the day of the event (the next day) was agreed.

On questioning the manager further and asking to see the email from the BM – it was confirmed that this had been agreed several hours earlier and that the member had been allowed to suffer considerable stress for the day for no reason.

In summary, the Rep stated it was clear that this ‘error’ had been brought about by the member losing focus and concentration due to stress.

This was not a deliberate act on the part of an experienced, capable and respected MOS.

The Rep read from the Disciplinary Policy (page 2) – see below.

This includes understanding if a concern is about your capability or conduct. Disciplinary action will only be taken if we reasonably believe you’ve deliberately not reached our expected standards of conduct or behaviour. If the problem is because of a gap in understanding, training, or a genuine mistake, and capability, our Performance Management Policy is followed.

After an adjournment, the Chair stated that the outcome would be  – No further action.

See rationale below –

The reason I have come to this decision is that while the incident is a serious error which did cause a financial loss and an impact to customer service, this appears to be an isolated incident.  You have not had this identified as a coaching need in the past, nor did you do this on purpose or with malicious intent.  As well as this, you demonstrated capability on the day when other calls were reviewed.

I found that this was a genuine error.

The member was very pleased and relieved with the outcome and has now been moved to a new manager and is flourishing in her role.

NB – it’s always good to look back on previous messages/emails etc with members you are dealing with – sometimes it provides all the evidence you may need!