In late 2009, concerns began to surface about R misusing her company credit card. TL confiscated her credit card with the exception of allowing R to use it for company travel expenses. About a month later, R came into possession of the card for the purposes of travelling on company business. At the completion of the trip, she kept it.
Again, the company became suspicious that R was misusing her company credit card. The CEO, after initially dismissing the claims as “unfounded” launched an investigation. This investigation brought to light numerous inconsistencies in R’s expenditure, including fuel consumption, KFC and various unauthorised cash withdrawals.
As it turns out, R had been buying petrol in excess of what her company’s car tank was capable of holding. Further, R bought $79.00 of fast food claiming it was for company employees, however, one of those employees was on annual leave, and the other three have no memory of the event.
With regards to the unauthorised cash withdrawals, R claimed to have used the money as cash incentives and subsequently to purchase wine (in the form of a reward) for fellow employees. Yet again, the employees concerned had no recollection of been given a cash reward and only one staff member recalled been given wine.
TL informed R it was investigating the matters and she was required to attend a formal meeting. After holding two disciplinary meetings, TL dismissed R for misusing her company credit card. R raised a person grievance on the basis she was unjustifiably dismissed, claiming that her actions were “legitimate, honest and in… the best interests of her employer”.
The Authority held that the decision rested on whether TL’s actions were “what a fair and reasonable employer would have done” pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2002, rather than R’s guilt or innocence.
In dismissing R’s personal grievance the Authority held while TL’s investigation “was not perfect, it was fair and comprehensive.” This is because despite TL testing the capacity of R’s fuel tank without her knowledge, R was informed of TL’s concerns and she was invited to respond to the allegations put to her before being dismissed. Also, throughout the disciplinary process, R had adequate legal representation.
The Authority found that it was reasonable for TL to conclude on the balance of probabilities, R was guilty of serious misconduct. Further, R’s dismissal was reasonable as her conduct irreparably damaged the trust and confidence which is essential to any employment relationship.
