Question

Faith caught an employee putting a case of 1,000 single-serving tea bags in his car. Not wanting to create a scene, Faith smiled and said, "I don’t think you’re putting those tea bags on the right shelf. Don't they belong inside the coffee shop?" The employee returned the tea bags to the stockroom. I with Faith's method of handling this situation because she has the internal control principle of safeguarding of assets. b. Gibraltar Coffee Shop has one cash register. Prior to Faith’s joining the coffee shop, each employee working on a shift would take a customer order, accept payment, and then prepare the order. Faith made one employee on each shift responsible for taking orders and accepting the customer’s payment. Other employees prepare the orders. I with Faith's method of handling this situation because Faith has the internal control principle of assignment of responsibility and the internal control principle of segregation of duties. c. Because only one employee uses the cash register, that employee is responsible for counting the cash at the end of the shift and verifying that the cash in the drawer matches the amount of cash sales recorded by the cash register. Faith expects each cashier to balance the drawer to the penny every time—no exceptions. I with Faith's method of handling this situation because Faith has the internal control principle of segregation of duties.

Answer 1

Answer and Explanation:

a. I oppose with Faith's way of dealing with this situation as it has not accompanied the principle of internal asset protection control. Stealing is a major concern. An employee who can explain carrying a box of tea bags is likely to warrant "borrowing" money from the cash register.

b. I agree to Faith's method of dealing with this situation since Faith accompanied the principle of internal control of task of responsibility by trying to make one employee responsible for the cash drawer and accompanied the principle of internal control of segregation of duties i.e order preparing from accounting i.e taking orders and payment

c. I disagree with Faith's method of dealing with this situation, as Faith has not accompanied the principle of internal control of separation of duties. It is valid that faith has rendered one employee responsible but for successful internal control after cash counting another employee or Faith itself removes the cash register tape and contrasts the balance with cash drawer. Faith's specification of no mistakes can also motivate the cashiers to overpay a few customers to absorb any possible cash drawer shortfalls.