Herbert Lewis, Guest Columnist
EMPLOYERS AND employees alike should be aware of what can happen when restrictions such as employee fringe benefits as the telephone or the company car are not detailed explicitly in the terms of employment.
There was a recent case in London in which a businessman used to spend about £60 a year on his home telephone.
One quarter, he received a bill for £227. He protested to the post office who replied: "Sorry, but the bill is correct."
It transpired that his German secretary used to enjoy a daily phone call to Italy for a chat with her boyfriend. She was duly charged with 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'. She was ordered to repay £180, and no one was surprised to learn that she lost her job.
In one way, the businessman was lucky. At least he found out that he was being fleeced.
His employee was dishonest and he was fully entitled to sack her. The court found that she had committed a crime and was properly convicted.
MILKED BY STAFF
In fact, far too many employers are milked by their staff, and never have any reasonable prospect of finding out. Nevertheless, employees should be warned: if anyone makes use of the company's facilities without permission, dire results will follow.
It should not be taken for granted that it is a legitimate 'perk' of anyone's employment to help himself to extensive and abusive use of the telephone.
If the petty cash pan or the stamp box sits in a man's drawer, he knows full well that he is not entitled to make use of its contents for his own purposes. "That would be stealing". If there is a "dishonest appropriation", the employee may be in trouble.
Of course, if you do prosecute your staff for helping themselves to overseas calls to wherever, I believe that the 'burden of proof' will be on you to show that the employee did not honestly believe that he was entitled to the facility.
Similar principles apply to the use of business transport. Do you provide a car for the mobile members of your staff? Then consider carefully the terms under which they are entitled to use that transport.
If transport is provided by the business, then it may normally be presumed that it is to be used for business purposes only.
If the employee is entitled to use the vehicle for his own private purposes, then he is receiving a 'benefit in kind' which will be assessed by the Revenue Department, and upon which he will normally have to pay tax.
There is nothing in the world to prevent you from saying: 'By all means take the car on holiday. Use it for pleasure, whenever it is not needed for the business.'
Once you have given your permission, then the employee is entirely within his rights to use the vehicle.
Trouble usually comes because there is no clear understanding between employer and employee. He thinks (or says he thinks) that he may use your petrol (or telephone or stationery or what-have-you) for himself.
You retort that he must have known that this was improper. At best, the result is an unpleasant and unnecessary dispute. At worst, your relationship ends in court.
So as a matter of contract, it is wise to make the terms known. In fairness to your employee, as well as to your organisation, specify precisely what use may be made of company's transport or telephone facilities, for private purposes. To avoid doubt, confirm the arrangements in writing. Then if any argument arises, you will be sure to win it.
FIND YOUR OWN POSITION
To find your own position, you should apply the rules in reverse. If you are your own boss and run your own transport or operate your own telephone and purchase stationery or stamps for a business which you yourself own and operate, then these worries will not affect you. But if you are an employee, however grand, expenses are of great importance to you.
By all means take advantage of every legitimate loophole provided by courtesy of the company and the Revenue Department.
If the business is prepared to provide extra facilities on the side and the tax man does not see fit to take them into account when assessing your contribution towards the revenue, then well and good. What you cannot afford is the risk of losing your position or facing charges of fraud, arising from abuse of facilities which the business places at your disposal.
So, from the point of view of both employers and employees, it is most important that terms of employment should adequately cover fringe benefits as well as normal conditions of work.
Herbert Lewis is an industrial relations specialist and past president of the Jamaica Employers' Federation.
