The Auditors of Public Accounts just issued a study of the DPUC and Office of Consumer Counsel. Here’s the tastiest piece of the report:
Alleged Theft of Time and Falsification of Timesheets:
Background: During the prior audited period, we investigated a complaint revealing that a DPUC employee was coming in for work late and leaving early, resulting in $24,792 of wages paid to the employee for hours not worked.
DPUC management conducted their own internal investigation concerning the complaint and concurred with our finding, resulting in termination of the employee on September 28, 2009. The employee challenged or appealed the dismissal through the grievance process and was reinstated on October 13, 2010.
Criteria: Sound business practices and proper internal control provide assurances that employees are properly supervised and are only compensated for hours worked.
Timesheets signed by an employee and supervisor provide for evidence of hours worked.
Condition: Based on our prior audit review of various sources of information, along with the employee’s attendance and leave records from January 7, 2008 to February 24, 2009, it was determined that the employee was paid $24,792 while being absent from work. The $24,792 was calculated based on 492 hours in lost time at the employee’s hourly rate of $50.39.
During this period, the employee’s leave records and timesheets showed that no leave time was charged during periods of absence in order to complete a full workday.
Effect: An employee was paid $24,792 for being absent from work, and a potential risk exists that the wages paid for non-work will not be reimbursed by the employee.
There is also a risk that situations such as this can create an environment where employees will abuse time and take advantage of management.
Cause: The immediate supervisor/manager failed to adequately supervise this employee and internal documents indicated that this employee had a light work load, explaining how he was able to complete assigned tasks while being present less than half the time.
Recommendation: The DPUC, in conjunction with the DAS, should seek recovery of wages paid to an employee who was absent for periods of time for which he was compensated.
Agency Response: (Response made by DPUC and DAS personnel)
“The Department agrees with this recommendation and notes that it has made significant efforts to recover the wages in question and will continue to pursue in the appropriate manner. The DAS SmART Unit, acting as the Department’s Human Resource function, immediately initiated steps necessary to collect the amount by properly notifying the employee of its intent per Article 53, Section 1 of the Engineer, Scientific & Technical bargaining union contract. The union filed a grievance and the agency was forced to halt recovery efforts pending its outcome. The grievance was heard on February 16, 2011 and as a result, upon recommendation of the Office of Labor Relations, the agency is seeking guidance from the Office of the Attorney General on how this matter should proceed.”