The document summarizes a case study of employee misconduct at Fiji International Telecommunications Limited (FINTEL). An employee took a company vehicle home without approval, which violated the employment contract. The matter was reported and investigated according to FINTEL's disciplinary procedures. The employee was found to have breached policy and received a written warning. The employee appealed but the penalty was upheld by the appeals committee. While FINTEL followed its procedures, the document recommends some changes to the disciplinary process and considerations for imposing penalties.

1. Project
Presentation
TOPIC:
Indiscipline/Misconduct
at FINTEL.

2. Company Profile
 Fiji International Telecommunications
Limited (FINTEL) is a Private Company
formed in December 1976 and licensed
by Government to provide Fiji’s
international telecommunications
connectivity and terminations to the
global and into the domestic network.
The company is jointly owned by the
Government of Fiji (51 percent) and
Cable and Wireless Communications
(www.cwc.com) of UK (49 percent).

3. introduction
 In these project will be discussing
about a case study from the company
Fiji International
Telecommunications Limited
(FINTEL) about the indiscipline and
misconduct and how the company
tries to solve the problem using their
discipline procedures and how they
lay the charges.

4. Case last year, an employee was found taking the
In December
company vehicle to his premises (home). The employee
was at work late hours and after finishing his job the
employee took the company vehicle to his home without
appealing for a approval or without legal approval. As
stated in the employment contract no worker is allowed to
take the company vehicle home for private use. The
employee who took the vehicle home is a old service staff
for the firm. The vehicle he took home was seen by the
security guard. The security at work that saw the
employee taking the vehicle home after hours reported to
the matter to the Head of department of the employee’s
section. Than the HOD dealt with the matter by collecting
evidence that he took the vehicle or no, as he found the
evidence about the particular incident than he took the
matter to the HR (internal disclipnary Committee) of the
company.
The matter was later dealed by the HR and disciplinary
action was taken against the employee.

5. Disciplinary Procedure contained
in Collective Agreement
 Any disciplinary matter that is reported to HR is dealt with
according to the following procedure:
 HR is notified by respective Head of Department
 HR Receives the compliant and acknowledges the receipt of it.
 Investigate the complaint using the organization guidelines and
ERP2007
 HR writes to accused 7 HOD explaining in details the issue that
has been raised by the HOD and informing the accused that an
investigation will be conducted.
 After investigation – report provided to Head of Department to
state findings
 If the findings substantive the complaints provided by the
Department than disciplinary process is provided
 At the last stage, if the investigation conducted concludes that
there is no offence committed than no disciplinary action is
provided or taken, but if the offence is created than disciplinary
actions will be taken according to the companies’ guidelines.

6. Step by step undertaken by the
compnay
 Report was filled by the Head for department to manager
HR
 HR advised the employee and conducted investigation
 At the completion of investigation, the employee was
found to be in breach of policy by taking the vehicle
home without proper approval
 Employee was advised via a memo of the offence and the
penalty
 Employee appealed on the grounds that it was unfair
 Appeals committee presided over the appeals process
 End of the hearing, penalty remains as the committee
was satisfied that the employee had breached the rules
and regulation by taking the company vehicle without
authority by the head of department.

7. Fairness
 From my point of view in the case from FINTEL I
think the employee was given the procedural
fairness to appeal to the case within the time
frame of seven days. He was given seven days
to appeal to his charge that was made on him.
Even if there are valid substantive reasons for a
dismissal, an employer must follow a fair
procedure before dismissing the employee.
Procedural fairness may in fact be regarded as
the "rights" of the worker in respect of the actual
procedure to be followed during the process of
discipline or dismissal. The employee was given
the grounds of fair and unfairness to appeal
according to the companies’ disciplinary
procedures. After that the hearing was made
based on the appeal.

8. Recommendation for Procedural
fairness
 What would I have done in this case is:
 Procedural Fairness: Misconduct
The following requirements for procedural fairness should be met:
 An employer must inform the employee of allegations in a manner the
employee can understand
 The employee should be allowed reasonable time to prepare a response to
the allegations
 The employee must be given an opportunity to state his/ her case during the
proceedings
 An employee has the right to be assisted by a shop steward or other
employee during the proceedings
 The employer must inform the employee of a decision regarding a
disciplinary sanction, preferably in writing- in a manner that the employee
can understand
 The employer must give clear reasons for dismissing the employee
 The employer must keep records of disciplinary actions taken against each
employee, stating the nature of misconduct, disciplinary action taken and
the reasons for the disciplinary action.

9. The Companies Penalty for
breach of policy:
 1. Employee was advised not to drive
company vehicle until further notice
 2. A written memo was provided as
first warning for breach of company
vehicle.
 The hearing was not just in
comparison with other employees.

10.  In regards with the employment
contract the company should have:
 Suspended the employee for
certain days.
 Cut pay of the employee
 Banned for using company
services for certain periods
 At last they could have also
terminated the employee

11.  Process for use of company vehicle
after working hours:
 The Head of Department shall provide
approval for use of company vehicle
after hours. If any employee removes
any company property without the
HOD’s approval that is a breach of
company policy which can also be
constituted as theft.

12. Conclusion
 To conclude my whole project I would like to say
that FINTEL was good in following the terms and
conditions of ERP2007 to dealing with the
Indiscipline/misconduct in their company. They
have an organized disciplinary procedure, step
by step process for dealing with the issue and
the penalty for the breach of policy. In Fintel the
code of good practice deals with some of the key
aspects of dismissals for reasons related to
conduct and capacity. It is intentionally general.
Each case is unique, and departures from the
norms established by this Code may be justified
in proper circumstances.
 But the company was not committed much in
common law while dealing with this case

13. Recommendation
I would recommend that the organization should
 Change its disciplinary procedure while lying charges
to the employees.
 Keep records for each employee specifying the
nature of any disciplinary transgressions, the actions
taken by the employer and the reasons for the
actions
 Keep track all employees act in the organization
 And When deciding whether or not to impose the penalty
of dismissal, the employer should not take in addition to
the gravity such as :
 length of service,
 previous disciplinary record,
 personal circumstances,
 the nature of the job and
 The circumstances of the infringement itself.

14. Thank you ..
Question’s