Incorrect Advice from Finance Department - What Are My Rights?

spurf on 22/03/2023 - 16:50
Last edited 22/03/2023 - 18:09 by 1 other user

I have an entitlement as part of my employment to have the cost of certain electronics reimbursed. This is spelt out in my Award, but the monetary limits and frequency are only spelt out for a certain category of salaried employee but not for my level. Nevertheless, the "vibe" since starting employment in 2009 was that these limits applied to all levels.

In 2017 I broke my phone and enquired to the relevant finance officer if I could purchase a new one immediately (even though sooner than normally allowed) and claim it later when my entitlement "refreshed". To my surprise, they said that I in fact could claim immediately as there were no such restrictions other than the amount in my account for all self-education / work expenses. We receive an allowance based on our full-time equivalence and they accrue when not used in this account. Unsurprisingly, I have been buying new phones as they are released to avail of this perk.

Fast forward to this year and the previous finance officer has retired and the new one has decided that the previous advice was erroneously given. They are "graciously" not asking for reimbursement of the previous claims but are denying my current one. I am seeking the documents that they are basing this on to satisfy myself that the current advice is correct for future claims.

I am asking that they reimburse me for the current phone as this purchase was made in good faith on the written advice I had at the time. I wouldn’t have upgraded otherwise and can't return the phone as they have taken months to get back to me after submitting the claim.

Any legal eagles out there to help me put the screws on for this?

• 

  localhost on 22/03/2023 - 17:03

  +5

  Do you have this advice in writing?

  • 

    dm02 on 22/03/2023 - 19:33

    +3

    I am asking that they reimburse me for the current phone as this purchase was made in good faith on the written advice I had at the time

• 

  Hybroid on 22/03/2023 - 17:06

  +4

  Do you have written confirmation from previous person? If so, then you might have a leg to stand on. He-said-she-said probably won't work if you're acknowledging contract doesn't specify allowance for your role.

• 

  original15 on 22/03/2023 - 17:24

  Going to depend what you have in writing vs policy. Looks like this scheme is over for you, what would you do with old phone each year? Pass on to a family member?
  At best scenario you get this years reimbursed
  Worse case they don’t (although they could argue worst case would be they seek reparation for the previous phones, but doubt this could happen unless you’ve actually got nothing in writing from previous rogue finance officer and they spin you were abusing a system).

  I wonder if because it it’s via reimbursement (rather than seeking approval prior to purchase) their standing is the onus is on the individual to ensure compliance with each purchase and that’s their out here.

  • 

    original15 on 22/03/2023 - 17:30

    Just a thought
    I wonder if initial advice was due to phone being broken, and that being an exception or special case?
    Way you’ve described it the advice from finance dept was due to breaking your phone and being able to purchase immediately. Was it confirmed that phones could be purchased every year regardless of damage?

• 

  Bargainitis on 22/03/2023 - 17:37

  +2

  Put aside the strict legals on this, I would consider the commerical outcomes more important. Its a new phone, its $1,300 - in the grand scheme of things, not alot of money.

  The question for you is, is it worth fighting for all the way up the chain - your new financial controller / whatever the title will likely seek approval from their superior if you want status quo. Best case is you get reimburse for this year but it'll go away next year. Second best / worse case is the seniors know about this and it may potentially becomes an internal black mark against your name. Worse case is they still revoke the benefit and the seniors know about it.

  Again, is the risk worth $1,300? If I were you, I would just say it was a misunderstanding from the prior finance person and you will adhere to the new rule. Be nice and see if they can waive this year's costs, if not, suck it up. Buying a new phone each year is both ritzy and pretty punchy mate.

  • 

    deme on 22/03/2023 - 19:38

    They are "graciously" not asking for reimbursement of the previous claims but are denying my current one.

    Did you even read the OP?

    seniors know about this and it may potentially becomes an internal black mark against your name

    No one cares, caring would cost more than the company would save.

    • 

      Bargainitis on 22/03/2023 - 21:58

      whats with the confrontation tone, mate?

      Did you read what I wrote? what are you exactly referring to in your reply? The OP is clearly considering asking for reimbursement of the current phone and I gave my rationale for possible outcomes.

      re: seniors knowing. People gossip and you should always assume people know more about you than you think. Thinking that no one cares is pretty naive. Hope you don't work in a corporate world…

      • 

        deme on 24/03/2023 - 08:36

        People gossip.
        People know.

        No one cares unless someone dobs in which case I'm annoyed at the dobber because then I need to pretend to care.

  • 

    JIMB0 on 23/03/2023 - 08:48

    You sound like my old boss who wanted everyone to cop it up the rear for the company. All it did was made sure no one would ever go out of their way to help the company. A false economy of sorts.

    • 

      Bargainitis on 23/03/2023 - 08:58

      Assume you are referring to my comment?

      Its all relative. Not everyone wins in the corporate pyramid (I assume OP works in corporate). Why give ammo for no real gain.

      • 

        deme on 24/03/2023 - 08:37

        Do you even work?

        It's an effort to fire someone, who can be bothered getting worked up over $1300. It's not even their money.

        • 

          Bargainitis on 24/03/2023 - 09:20

          @deme: lol

          dont worry about it mate. Enjoy your weekend.

          • 

            deme on 24/03/2023 - 17:18

            @Bargainitis: I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling upset and that you're currently unemployed. It can be a tough situation to be in, but it's important to stay positive and keep pushing forward. There are resources available to help you in your job search, such as career centres and online job boards. It's also a good idea to network with friends, family, and professionals in your field to increase your chances of finding a job. Remember that setbacks are temporary and that with perseverance and hard work, you can achieve your goals.

            • 

              Bargainitis on 24/03/2023 - 17:54

              @deme: Nah, I much prefer taxpayers like you funding my lifestyle. Love Australia.

• 

  Drpepper666 on 22/03/2023 - 18:13

  +2

  Sounds like the previous person was extending a policy they didn't need to. If you have it in writing, forward it on and see what they say.

  However new person is applying the policy as written. If they still deny you, drop the matter. You're not actually entitled to it.

• 

  deme on 22/03/2023 - 19:39

  +1

  This is spelt out in my Award, but the monetary limits and frequency are only spelt out for a certain category of salaried employee but not for my level.

  What award? Go ask your union for help, you do pay for union membership?

• 

  Lunarboogie on 22/03/2023 - 20:34

  +1

  Out of curiosity OP, did you sell your old phone each year and personally benefit? If so, sounds like you're way ahead so perhaps roll with the punches here and let it lie.

  Your employer was remarkably generous in funding a new phone each year for a category of its staff. This is not the norm. Under what scenario would you need a new phone every year for work purposes? For me, it's environmentally reckless, not to mention financially profligate. Gym membership, health insurance and other similar perks lead to much better business and social outcomes. Move on, mate.

• 

  spurf on 23/03/2023 - 08:05

  +1

  Thanks for all the replies.

  Not stressing if the current advice is correct for future claims. Personally, I think the whole scheme is inefficient and creates perverse economic incentives but I had nothing to do with the negotiations for the award and am merely subject to it. I would prefer they just paid a slightly higher salary and I’d sort out my own self-education / work expenses and tax deducts them instead but no doubt the bureaucratic hoops placed in the way means the employer is slightly ahead despite the theoretically higher financial liability.

  I received an email this morning from finance, and it looks like they may have a solution to reimburse the current claim. Will let you know the outcome.

• 

  Mikinoz on 24/03/2023 - 17:59

  I would point back to this being repeated over a number of years as an acceptable practice

• 

  kiwiyonip on 31/03/2023 - 21:17

  OP, try to find another company, seriously. Instead of wasting your energy and time fighting a losing battle, you should consider looking for a new job.

• 

  spurf on 01/04/2023 - 10:34

  They've agreed to pay for the phone and will be publishing actual guidelines rather than relying on word-of-mouth 😄

• 

  Mikinoz on 01/04/2023 - 10:48

  Good outcome for everyone