The whole story begins during a business trip to Amsterdam at the beginning of July last year, where Szabolcs Fekete went. The man had worked at Citibank for seven years as an analyst specializing in financial crimes.
He wanted a refund for the double portions of meals
After a three-day trip back to London, he applied for… Reimbursement of food and beverage expenses. After he was asked if he had actually eaten all the meals for which he requested a refund, the contradictions began.
“I was alone on a business trip and… I drank two cups of coffee because it was so small“- said the employee in an email response to the question.
He explained: “I did not eat breakfast that day, and in the morning I drank only one coffee, and at lunch I took one sandwich with a drink and one coffee in the restaurant, and I took another coffee with me to the office. “And I ate the second sandwich in the afternoon… for lunch.” He tried to explain himself, adding:
“All my expenses fall within the daily allowance of 100 euros. Could you explain to us what the problem is, because “I don’t think I need to explain my eating habits much.” -Fickett continued.
Bank: It’s not about the amount, it’s about violating our policy
The bank also clarified that the investigation was not related to the amount itself, but rather a possible violation of its expense management policy. Under which the husband’s travel and meal costs are not refunded.
At the next stage of the investigation, the employee was asked whether he had eaten pesto and pasta Bolognese with his partner, to which Fickett replied no.
But in the end the man admitted it He also included shared meals with his wife in the costs. He attributed his behavior to personal difficulties following the death of his grandmother, and was allegedly taking strong medications while exchanging emails.
When he was fired, he filed a lawsuit
The bank decided to fire him, to which Fickett responded A lawsuit regarding unjustified and illegal dismissal.
The court ruled in favor of Citibank. The justification stated that “it is not about monetary issues,” but rather about the subsequent behavior of the employee. It was said: “It is significant that the plaintiff did not provide true information at the first opportunity.”
“Even if the refund claim is made due to a misunderstanding, The plaintiff was obliged to acknowledge his position and correct it at the first opportunity.” – added.
