Trust-based roles attract higher standards, and "no harm done" wasn't a defence
An executive assistant who booked a personal rental car through her employer's corporate travel system, then deleted the approval email, has lost her unfair dismissal bid.
The Fair Work Commission handed down the decision on 24 April 2026, dismissing Sharron Morgan's application against Eastern Melbourne Healthcare Network Ltd (EMPHN), a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation funded by the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments.
Morgan had worked as executive assistant to the CEO since 13 December 2021. Her duties included booking travel approved by chief executive Janine Wilson through the organisation's corporate travel provider, ATPI Australia.
On 2 December 2024, Morgan used the ATPI portal to book a Budget rental car for personal use, marking it "PERSONAL BOOKING – NOT EMPHN." The booking was initially made for the period 2-5 December 2024, but Morgan kept extending the rental until 20 January 2025. The total cost for the rental vehicle for the period from 2 December 2024 - 20 January 2025 was $3,784.68, split across three invoices.
Wilson never approved the booking. In fact, she could not have. Wilson was in New Zealand on 2 December 2024 with her email access blocked, and Morgan knew it.
That is where the case took a forensic turn. After Morgan's dismissal, an investigation uncovered an "approval email" titled "Approved – Trip for Sharron Morgan to Moorabbin departing 2 December" that had been created in Morgan's mailbox at 04:25:37 UTC, landed in Wilson's inbox 13 seconds later, and was moved to Morgan's deleted items at the very same moment it arrived. The email was later soft-deleted from Morgan's mailbox on 28 January 2025 and disappeared from Wilson's inbox too. Morgan accepted she likely deleted it from Wilson's inbox.
Wilson only became aware of the rental car around 20 February 2025. Morgan was called into a Microsoft Teams meeting on 24 February 2025 with HR manager Rita Lambros and corporate services director Manuel Escudero, where she was stood down on full pay and presented with allegations that she had breached EMPHN's Travel Policy, Disclosure of Interests, Gifts and Benefits Policy, and Code of Conduct.
She paid the third invoice of $1,656.59 between that meeting and the next one on 27 February 2025. The second invoice of $2,115.73 was not paid until nearly three weeks after her dismissal on 3 March 2025.
Morgan argued her dismissal was disproportionate. She said she had not deliberately breached any policies, that any "misunderstanding" regarding approval requirements was at most an oversight, and that EMPHN suffered no financial loss or reputational harm. She pointed to other staff, including Wilson herself, who had breached policies without being sacked. Wilson had inadvertently used EMPHN's Uber account for private journeys due to the default account on her Uber setting having been the Respondent's account, but reported these issues to the Chairperson of the Respondent's board and reimbursed EMPHN for all the private trips, such that the issue was resolved. Morgan also pointed to another member of staff who had used a personal credit card to make an accommodation booking for a work purpose and submitted an invoice for reimbursement which included a charge for alcohol consumed at dinner while travelling on business — both incidents that were resolved without dismissal.
Deputy President Clancy was not persuaded by the comparisons. He found Morgan's conduct constituted "a very serious breach of trust" and a valid reason for dismissal. While Morgan claimed no benefit, Clancy noted that booking through ATPI deferred her payment liability and effectively gave her cash-flow relief, particularly given she had been regularly accessing advance pay from October 2024 onwards.
Clancy also confirmed the deleted-email evidence could be used even though it surfaced after the dismissal, citing the long-standing principle that "facts in existence at the time of a dismissal, but not known to the employer at that time, may nonetheless be relied upon to justify the dismissal."
The decision is a useful reminder that employees in trust-based roles, particularly those with access to executive systems and inboxes, are held to a higher standard. "No harm done" is not a defence when integrity is the issue. And forensic evidence uncovered after a termination, including digital trails of deleted emails, can still be brought into play to defend a dismissal decision.
