Boss charging sales rep for customer's bounced check

August 6, 2004 11:04 AM

ShadyBossFilter: The situation is this: items were purchased at a cost of $6800 from one company to sell to another company. Our customer either bounced or stopped payment on the check, but our boss is trying to leave our sales rep holding the bag (i.e. he is deducting the cost of goods from his paycheck). The sales rep stood to take in a percentage of the profit as commission, but I would have assumed that the company takes on the risk in situations like this, not the employee. We're in New Jersey. What's the deal? (p.s. Today is my last day.)

I should maybe add that I work for a corporation and that none of the sales reps have entered into a contract that specifies who is responsible for what in situations like these. My boss is probably going to go after the customer, and if he is victorious he will then have the money that would have resulted from the sale, plus the money he deducts from the sales rep's salary, and will probably wind up profiting tremendously.

posted by alphanerd to Work & Money (8 answers total)

Sounds like a shady deal. You should have the sales rep contact a Burly Italian Employment Attorney. Ideally, the kind who owns the kind of Lincoln that can carry multiple bodies in the trunk. For extra dramatic effect, have the sales rep stop by an undertaker's shop and pick up a few glossies on the latest coffins available. He could leave them on the bosses desk at night... Always remember to remain cheerful!
posted by Kwantsar at 11:31 AM on August 6, 2004

The employee doesn't owe anybody a damned thing. But if he doesn't want to potentially lose his job over this, he should say that all that he owes is the percentage that he stood to gain. It's a crappy compromise, but it's something.
posted by waldo at 11:48 AM on August 6, 2004

This sounds pretty seriously illegal if the sales rep is actually an employee and not a subcontractor. This guy needs a lawyer.
posted by majick at 11:58 AM on August 6, 2004

Or at least a talk with the local labour relations board or equivelent.
posted by Mitheral at 12:12 PM on August 6, 2004

I have no idea about the legal ground, but would sure flee from any employer who holds the staff personally financially responsible for the outcome of ordinary business activities. "At risk" is what being an owner/partner/stockholder is suppposed to be about and why those roles get the bigger payoffs when things do go right. If the person was acting within the bounds of their assigned responsibilities, upheld the organization's standards for normal business practices, and wasn't doing anything illegal, this sounds like bullshit to me. Consider whether it's in your interest to stick with company that is willing to pick its employees' pockets for personal loans to cover the customers' debts.

And I gotta wonder how vigorously they'll pursue the collection. If the company's got it's money from the salesman, there's no urgent need to get it elswhere. Collections take time and expense, and usually get settled for less than the full amount. Why bother with that kind of effort, let along negotiate for a lesser amount, when they've already got the full balance from the employee?
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 12:18 PM on August 6, 2004

Oh. Wait. You're saying the boss plans to double-dip?? Wow, the mob would love some of that action.

Run like the wind. If he gets away with this now, then the most profitable thing he could do is to sabotage the company's every business transaction so he can collect twice on those too.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 12:35 PM on August 6, 2004

Does the sales rep know what the boss is trying to pull?
posted by bshort at 1:49 PM on August 6, 2004

So, the sales rep gets the goods, right?

If I were the sales rep, I'd demand they be delivered to me, post haste. Otherwise, I might pay then sue the company for stealing my goods.

But then, I'm just the sort of litigious person to enjoy a good court case.
posted by shepd at 5:44 PM on August 6, 2004