The employee, Nelly, suddenly received two full salaries deposited into her bank account due to a major accounting error by her company. The next day, Human Resources contacted Nelly and promptly demanded that she return the extra payment. Nelly refused this request, telling the representative: “It’s not my fault accounting messed up. I already used the money. I thought it was an end-of-year bonus for my work.” The HR representative called her “unprofessional” for her stance. Nelly felt this was deeply unfair, maintaining that she should not be punished for a mistake she did not personally make.
The HR representative quickly intensified the pressure on Nelly, warning her sternly: “Pay it back now, or you won’t receive your next salary.” Nelly did not back down from the threat, confidently replying: “Then you’ll be hearing from my lawyer.” She reiterated her position that she should not be penalized for the company’s payroll mistake, a position that caused the HR representative to simply smile and remain silent. Nelly’s firm response highlighted the unfairness of the demand and immediately set a clear boundary against the aggressive tactics being used by the corporate office.
The very next day, a startling email was widely distributed across the entire office. It announced that due to a “recent financial issue,” the following month’s salaries would be indefinitely delayed, and it apologized for the inconvenience. The news quickly spread, and Nelly’s colleagues soon figured out that she was involved in the underlying issue. Her coworkers started giving her uncomfortable looks and treating her differently. Nelly knew her single payment error was not the real reason for the company-wide salary delay, but she realized that HR was intentionally using her case to turn everyone in the office against her.
That very night, Nelly was shocked when she received a knock on her front door. It was two of her colleagues, who were almost begging her to return the extra salary because they genuinely could not afford any delay in their monthly pay. One of them stressed the severity of the situation, saying, “We have families to feed. We’re getting punished because of this.” Nelly was now heavily torn. She did not want her colleagues to suffer because of the delay, yet she strongly believed that she should not be forced to return the money that was given to her due to a mistake she didn’t make.
The experts advised Nelly that she should only pay back the money strategically, not silently. She must first prepare a short written agreement: she would return the extra salary only if HR confirmed in writing that: the salary delay had nothing to do with her, no disciplinary note would be added to her employee file, and they accepted full responsibility for the original payroll error. This specific condition forces HR to formally admit the truth on paper. If they refuse to put the terms in writing, her colleagues will clearly see who is truly causing the ongoing delay.
Nelly was advised to offer a conditional solution that effectively protects her financial standing. She should tell HR that she is willing to consider returning the extra salary, but only if two conditions are met: the return must be split over several months so that she isn’t financially harmed by a single lump sum repayment, and all staff salaries must be paid on time again before the deductions begin. This approach shows Nelly’s empathy toward her coworkers while refusing to accept financial damage for the company’s accounting error. It also forces HR to fix the widespread payroll problem before asking Nelly to take any action.
