FWC orders PSA to take the matter to a third-party investigator if it wants to pursue the probe
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has found that the Public Service Association of New South Wales (PSA) failed to follow its own misconduct procedures in investigating alleged timesheet fraud by one of its industrial officers.
The industrial officer, a long‑serving union official, was accused of falsifying timesheets while working from home and using flex leave.
The dispute began after PSA General Secretary Stewart Little became concerned in late 2025 that the officer had been working from home and taking or banking flex leave around weekends and long weekends.
He conducted a preliminary review of her timesheets and then directed Assistant Secretary Troy Wright to undertake a formal review of the officer's timesheets.
Following that review, the officer was told that, on several occasions between July and September 2025, she had allegedly submitted timesheets she knew were false, claiming she was working when she was not.
Wright interviewed the officer, who provided a detailed written response. In November 2025, he produced an investigation report recommending dismissal.
In a December 2025 letter, Little told the officer that Wright's report had found that "on the balance of probabilities an allegation of serious misconduct is sustained."
Little said he had reviewed the allegations, the report, and her feedback, and that he agreed she had engaged in serious misconduct.
He proposed to terminate her employment, offering her the opportunity to resign, and invited a further response before making a final decision.
Flawed probe process
The officer then lodged a dispute with the FWC under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging the PSA had not followed clause 51 of the Public Service Association of NSW Staff Enterprise Agreement 2024 and the PSA Performance/Conduct Management Policy.
Under clause 51, the PSA "must follow the procedures of this Clause and the PSA Performance/Conduct Management Policy before taking disciplinary action, including dismissal."
Commissioner Riordan emphasised that the key question was not whether the officer had falsified timesheets, but whether the PSA had complied with the agreement and policy.
"Based on the plain English meaning of the words in the first sentence of clause 51.1 of the Agreement, I am satisfied and find that the Policy has been incorporated into the Agreement," Riordan said in the ruling.
"The Respondent must, therefore, follow the relevant provisions of the Policy."
The Commissioner accepted that some departures from the policy did not, by themselves, invalidate the process.
For example, the limited early involvement of the officer's direct manager and the fact that Wright, rather than the General Secretary personally, informed her of her right to representation were not seen as compromising procedural fairness.
"I am satisfied and find that the non‑compliance … does not invalidate the process because the Applicant's right to procedural fairness has not been compromised," Riordan added.
However, the FWC identified a serious flaw at the assessment stage.
Wright had gathered the evidence, formulated the allegations, and then evaluated the officer's response and recommended dismissal.
"Put simply, the Respondent has conflated two of the steps in the process by having the Assistant Secretary act as the Applicant's manager and also act as the independent investigator," Riordan said. "As a result, the process lacks the required procedural fairness, so the application must succeed."
Riordan held that the lack of procedural fairness at this stage was "so significant that it renders the show cause process invalid."
"I am satisfied and find that the Respondent has failed to comply with its Agreement by asking the Applicant to Show Cause based on the investigations of the Assistant Secretary," he added.
The FWC did not bar the PSA from taking any further action. Noting the serious allegations of timekeeping fraud that the industrial officer vigorously refutes, Riordan said the General Secretary has an obligation to the members of the union to see the matter properly resolved.
To proceed lawfully, the decision states, the PSA must now pass the allegations, the material used to formulate them, and the officer's response to a third‑party investigator if it wishes to continue the investigation.
