Taste for free coffee ends in worker’s sacking
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has found a credit union employee’s personal use of her employer’s account at a nearby café justified dismissal despite the employee’s previous unblemished service.
What happened
The applicant in the matter was employed with CUA, a member-owned credit union, as a Customer Service Specialist. CUA customers (members) would be offered a free beverage if they were in the branch for a lengthy period. The applicant would go to a nearby café and place an order for the member which would be charged to CUA’s account at the café.
In early June 2020, the CUA Brisbane branch manager, made enquiries with the café about the account. The manager of the café made a comment to the effect of, “I warned them, I told them they would get caught…”. In a subsequent discussion with the branch manager, the café manager specifically named the applicant and another CUA employee (Ms AB) as using the café account for personal use. After reviewing invoices provided by the café, CUA managers formed the view that the amount appeared high considering all of Australia was largely shut down in the relevant period due to COVID-19 such that foot traffic to the Brisbane branch had been dramatically reduced.
On 16 June 2020, the applicant received a letter from CUA alleging she had misused the CUA account with the café to pay for her own orders. Ms AB also received a letter alleging the same offences. The total amount CUA alleged had been misused was $101.70. The applicant was later asked to show cause before being dismissed on 1 July 2020 with CUA regarding the conduct as theft.
FWC outcome
Before the FWC, the applicant denied using the CUA café account for personal use except for one isolated instance in March 2020 for which she offered an explanation. But Commissioner Hunt of the FWC found the applicant’s evidence lacking in credibility. The Commissioner said the applicant “did not make a truthful witness in many respects.” The Commissioner was satisfied that the applicant and Ms AB jointly misused the CUA account at the café. Commissioner Hunt accepted the café manager’s evidence that she warned the applicant and Ms AB in April 2020 that their personal coffee orders on the CUA account would become known because of the significant downturn in business in the city.
The Commissioner went on to find that the applicant’s conduct struck “at the heart of her duties to CUA to be honest in all of her transactions at or involving the workplace, despite her being responsible for only part of the inappropriate transactions, in concert with Ms AB.” Commissioner Hunt found there was a valid reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was procedurally fair and dismissed the applicant’s unfair dismissal claim.
CUA did not, however, escape criticism with the Commissioner noting that if failed to tell the applicant it was also investigating her colleague Ms AB for the same conduct.
Covert recordings a no-no
In some further comments that will interest employers, the Commissioner referred to covert recordings the applicant had made during meetings with her employer. The applicant had been informed by CUA that she was not permitted to record the meetings but proceeded to do so. The Commissioner described the conduct of recording individuals in the workplace without their knowledge as being, in most cases, “underhanded and unacceptable.” The Commissioner went on to say that the applicant’s conduct in recording a meeting after being directed not to, constituted misconduct.