An internal audit is conducted by the management of companies or organizations. This is an extremely rare situation, but very serious. Any minor problems that may arise with one or another employee do not require such extreme measures. As a rule, it is usually quite simple to speak imposingly and seriously with subordinates so that similar situations do not arise in the future (or, at least, are minimized).
A serious and thorough internal audit is carried out already when serious problems have arisen due to the actions of the employee of the enterprise, organization or company. There can be a lot of such factors, and the main ones will be discussed in more detail below. It should be remembered that the internal audit is not carried out by decision of the entrepreneur, employer or other manager in all cases. In some situations, a written statement from one of the employees will be enough to activate this process.
Causes
There are no strictly listed principles and factors that will indicate how an internal audit is conducted in relation to employees. The same is true for the probable causes of the problem. In most cases, only a large financial loss of a company can provoke an audit. This is true for all private firms or organizations, because for them it is income that is the basis. However, there are other reasons, many of which can be much more serious and significant. For example, it can be a major theft of corporate property. Naturally, this does not apply to pencils or pens, which many office workers deliberately or accidentally take home with them.
Another thing is if the employee responsible for the safety of the property in the warehouse successfully traded it without the permission of the employer and the owner of the goods. This is a serious problem, but it may also be included in the list of financial losses. It should be noted that there are situations and much worse. For example, due to a worker’s oversight, another person (employee or not - in this case it doesn’t matter) suffered serious damage to his health or even died. This can happen for many different reasons, but the fact that a similar situation arose and led to the death of a person is already very serious. A direct consequence is that the internal audit is carried out not only by the employer, but also by law enforcement agencies, as well as, possibly, by some other authorities.
Initiators
As already mentioned above, most often the higher-level management begins the verification itself. For example, the company has a certain employee, due to the actions (or inaction) of which the company suffered significant losses. Due to the fact that the internal audit is carried out by decision of the head of the organization (or branch), the head of the department writes a memo in his name. In it, he is obliged to describe the situation that has arisen, as much as possible, the degree of employee’s guilt and point out any details that, from his point of view, can affect the final result. This is the simplest and most common example.
But there are also situations when the head of the department is to blame, or he deliberately “covers up” another employee, refusing to start the proceedings. In this case, any of the employees has the right on his own behalf to write a memorandum similar to that described above in the name of the senior management. Such an approach can be very useful, but it is always better to first find out if there is a certain group of people in the team who will fence off each other in any way. That is, it is likely that turning directly to a higher management will also not be effective. You will either have to come to terms or find evidence that is guaranteed to be taken into account.
The control
The fact of who will exercise control also depends on the organization in which the problem has arisen and what exactly it consists of. For example, when an internal audit is carried out in the internal affairs department, state bodies will carry out general management, clarify information, and so on. But in a similar situation that occurs at the enterprise, control may be carried out by the audit department, personnel, internal security services, and so on. Naturally, the way an internal audit is conducted in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Department of Internal Affairs, the mayor’s administration or a small company does not play a significant role.
The final result and the speed of its appearance are important. The inspection should be attended by precisely those departments, bodies or public servants who for a minimum period of time can find a problem without any discounts on who exactly is the culprit. For example, if the problem is theft, then the audit department will do it best. But if the main violation was the lack of an employee in his place, it is better to involve a personnel selection service (whatever it is called at different enterprises). If a security breach has occurred (information leakage, unauthorized persons being in a closed facility, and so on), then the department that specializes in this will do the job best. This is true of all other situations, without exception.
Interested people
In any situation, there is a certain group of people who are interested in one or another result. These may be the culprits of the culprit or companions sympathizing with him, who wish that the error was not proved. They are all obliged to write statements on their own with a request to remove them from the audit, indicating the reasons. The employer is obliged to take these documents into account, and if it is really necessary, remove such employees for some time while maintaining wages. Naturally, they cannot control the course of the audit or themselves are part of the commission to investigate the violation.
The problem is that in many cases it is almost impossible to identify all persons who are somehow interested in different results of the audit without their personal participation. That is, if a person does not want to write the corresponding report on his own behalf, but there is a suspicion that he still has some kind of interest in the problem, it is better to exclude it from the investigation process.
The timing
An internal audit of a civil servant is carried out strictly within one month from the date of registration of the document initiating it. For example, if it was a memo, then as soon as she is assigned an incoming number and a date is indicated, the countdown starts immediately. The situation will be similar in the event that the start of the audit was given through the publication of a specific order of the leadership. It should be noted that this period does not include the period when the employee was sick, was on vacation, and so on.
After the final decision is made, it must be agreed with the representative body formed by the employees, and the term of approval is also not included here. But he still should not exceed 6 months. Despite how and when an internal audit is conducted on the fact, the perpetrator can also be punished only for a certain period of time. So, for example, a violation of discipline is considered relevant for the same 6 months. But if the reason for the audit was serious financial loss or something like that, then the period is extended to two years.
Removal of the culprit
As mentioned above, an internal audit is carried out in cases of theft, significant misconduct and the like. Usually nothing needs to be proved for a long time. But sometimes the identification of all factors and details can take a very long time. For the entire period of the investigation, the potential culprit must be removed from his post, but he still has to pay his salary.
In the event that an internal audit is carried out by decision of the representative of the employer, immediately at the time of its commencement, a corresponding document is drawn up directly indicating that the potential culprit must cease his current activities before the decision is made. On the whole, the situation will be similar even when ordinary employees become the initiator, but even in this case, it is the manual that must be drafted and signed.
Rights
All potential culprits have certain rights, which no one can deprive. So, while the internal audit is carried out, they can in any form explain various points, clarify information, write reports and so on. Naturally, they may refuse to give an explanation, but in this case it will automatically be considered that they impede the investigation. That is, such actions will only worsen the situation. An official inspection of a civil servant is carried out in exactly the same way as a state one, so that their rights will be identical.
The second right is the opportunity to appeal the final decision in court or any other higher authorities. That is, if a person is really sure of his innocence, and they make him the culprit, he can try to prove the opposite, if for some reason he could not do it as part of the verification. The last thing he has the right to is to find out the official result of the investigation. True, there is an exception. For example, if classified information will appear in this document, they may not be allowed to get acquainted with it. Sometimes those areas where such data are present are somehow closed, seized, and so on. That is, familiarization with the details, although not in full, nevertheless becomes possible, but more often the final decision is just announced, with which you can agree or refute.
First stage
In order to better understand all the features and progress of the test, the whole process can be divided into several steps. So, the very first step is to draw up a report or order. At this step, it does not matter in which cases an internal audit is carried out, since it is identical for absolutely all situations. There must always be some kind of initiator, able to describe in detail what happened, provide the necessary information, and so on. It is best to immediately provide documentary evidence of guilt and describe the problem in as much detail as possible.
It should be borne in mind that the investigation, review and internal audit is carried out within a month. That is, you need to make sure that the evidence base for this period does not lose its relevance, does not disappear in an unknown direction, and so on. For example, if documents are stored in electronic form, it is better to duplicate it on different media, because in theory it is possible to access the data warehouse. This will prevent the deletion of the necessary information. The same applies to video files or other similar information. In some cases, it is better to play it safe and prepare in advance for troubles or loss of data than subsequently not be able to prove your case and the fact of violation.
Commission formation
Due to the fact that the internal audit is carried out by decision of the company’s management, it also collects special advice that will monitor the progress of the investigation and make the final decision. This is an important stage requiring great attention. The bottom line is that the commission should in no way include persons interested in a particular audit result. Even if it is a slight personal interest, sympathy for the potential culprit or any other similar factors.
You should always remember that if during the audit it turns out that a person was interested, then the entire investigation is considered invalid. Have to start over. Often, the commission includes the heads of various departments, employees who did not communicate with the potential culprit, and so on. Who exactly will be its member can be decided only by the leader, but he must also rely on logic. If he belongs to interested parties, then another person will be engaged in the formation of the commission.
Explanation
All subsequent actions can be reduced to one simple description - giving evidence. That is, when an internal audit of civil servants is carried out really correctly and taking into account all possible factors, the first thing that needs to be done is to question the potential culprit. It is advisable that he write his explanations and any other information in writing. It is likely that he has his own vision of the problem and evidence that he actually had nothing to do with its occurrence. This is not uncommon in those teams where many people compete for one place with each other. Someone does this adequately, simply improving personal indicators, but others prefer to go the other way, fabricating evidence, substituting a person, and so on.
In addition to the immediate possible culprit, who has already been removed from office and gave his explanations, one should also demand them from other persons. It is necessary to take into account all those who can reasonably express their opinion on the problem. Often, the prosecutor and the potential culprit independently indicate the wrong employees or other people who can say something in their defense or confirm some important data. But you cannot stop on this list. The more information will be collected, starting from a survey of employees of the enterprise and ending with video recording from surveillance cameras, the more adequate and correct the final decision will be.
Verification Report
An internal audit is carried out in case of problems. But this does not mean that there must be a culprit. All this is reflected in the final report-decision of the previously formed commission. In fact, there may be only a couple of points that will smoothly flow into each other. So, in the first place are all the facts studied, evidence, descriptions, evidence and the like. You should not immediately indicate the point of view or the opinion of the compiler of the report (or any other persons), if this does not affect the final result. Only dry information giving the maximum idea of the problem.
After all the circumstances are clear, information should be provided on whether the indicated employee is really guilty of what exactly and what punishment will follow. It is logical that the document is written. It must be signed by all members of the commission, the leader and, possibly, other persons who participated in the investigation in one way or another. In some cases, it is necessary that all the testifying officers also write that all the information is submitted correctly, there are no complaints, the data is recorded correctly, and so on.
Summary
Given all the information that was mentioned above, it becomes clear in which cases an internal audit is carried out, who should control it, implement it, initiate it, and so on. You can never rely on the opinion of only one side of the issue. The presumption of innocence should always be considered . That is, the lack of evidence does not indicate employee guilt. At the same time, the initiator must understand that if he cannot fully confirm his report, then no punishment will follow. But relations with the allegedly guilty employee will be spoiled very seriously. Only with really significant violations, which are not particularly difficult to confirm, does it make sense to start an internal investigation. Otherwise, most likely, the fault will not be proved.