Commission cites 'culture of non-compliance' at workplace
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with the application of a manager who alleged that he was unfairly dismissed over credit card misuse.
The manager argued that his alleged “misconduct” was “sanctioned by senior [management] in his team” and that there was a “culture” that allowed the disputed transactions.
On May 10, 2023, the worker, Mahamed Ali filed proceedings with the FWC, alleging unjust dismissal by his employer, Sydney Trains.
He started work as a transit officer in January 2003 at the age of 19. Subsequently, the worker joined Sydney Trains in 2014 as a cleaner-in-charge, eventually being appointed as an area manager in the Fleet Maintenance Division in June 2015.
In August 2020, the employer demoted the worker, citing breaches of the Code of Conduct, Attendance and Leave Policy, and Motor Vehicle Fleet Procedure. It served him allegations, including dishonesty in reporting work hours and unauthorized use of the company-issued motor vehicle.
Later, the worker went on sick leave and received workers' compensation between April 15, 2021, and May 13, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the employer suspended him pending an investigation by the Workplace Conduct and Investigations Unit (WCIU).
After the investigation, the employer alleged misconduct charges, including misuse of his employer-issued credit card or Purchasing Card (PCard).
Worker's credit card misuse
According to records, between 22 February 2019 and 16 December 2020, the worker "used his PCard to make purchases but did not supply any and/or adequate documentation."
In making this allegation, the employer referred to 28 transactions in relation to which it said tax invoices were not uploaded into its accounting system or were illegible.
Another incident happened between 4 April 2019 and 16 February 2021, where transactions were made using the PCard that had been issued to the worker "which were non-compliant with the relevant Sydney Trains Purchasing Card Policies and/or procedures."
On 14 February 2021, the worker purchased items on his PCard for "personal or private expenditure." Various transactions were identified by the employer in relation to this allegation.
Between 21 October 2021 and 5 April 2022, the worker "used his PCard to attempt to make transactions while he was on workers’ compensation."
On September 28, 2022, the employer substantiated some allegations and issued a preliminary disciplinary measure. After a series of reviews concerning the investigation, on April 19, 2023, the employer decided to terminate the worker's employment, effective immediately.
Was it unfair dismissal?
The worker said there was no valid reason for his dismissal for the following reasons:
- He did not engage in serious misconduct.
- The conduct relied upon by the employer to dismiss him “had at all times been approved by managers who held authority to approve each of the submitted expenses.”
- The decision to dismiss him was “procedurally unfair, including because of the gap in time being approximately 18 months between the investigation and when the allegations were presented to [him].”
He also said that his purchases “were sanctioned by senior managers in his team and there existed a culture, led by senior managers, wherein transactions for expenses, such as car washing and catering was condoned.”
‘Cultural problem’ in the workplace
The FWC found that the worker was “part of a poor management culture within the Fleet Maintenance Division in which managers adopted a poor attitude toward compliance with the [employer’s] policies and procedures regarding PCard use.”
“It was a culture in which non-compliance with policies was encouraged and [Ali], as a manager, contributed to this when he had obligations to do something to prevent or address it and, in doing so, perpetuated it.”
“As a manager, compliance with policies and leading by example were important parts of his role and his conduct meant that he did not meet his obligations in this regard and did not demonstrate that he accepts any responsibility for this.”
“Administrative and compliance tasks can sometimes be tedious and cumbersome for persons employed to utilise other skills, however, in the modern workforce they are a key part of many roles, particularly management roles,” the Commission said.
“High level of accountability for expenditure and requirements for sound governance mean that these processes are of particularly high importance,” it added.
Thus, the FWC said that the dismissal was not harsh or unjust. It then dismissed the worker’s application against the employer.
