Create a free account, or log in

Employee theft suspected? New case reveals you must investigate before you can sack

A legal expert has warned businesses must investigate any allegations of theft before sacking an employee, after a successful unfair dismissal case in which a business owner only assumed a theft had taken place without proof. The case highlights an important issue for SMEs โ€“ although the small business dismissal code allows SMEs to dismiss […]
Patrick Stafford
Patrick Stafford

A legal expert has warned businesses must investigate any allegations of theft before sacking an employee, after a successful unfair dismissal case in which a business owner only assumed a theft had taken place without proof.

The case highlights an important issue for SMEs โ€“ although the small business dismissal code allows SMEs to dismiss employees due to a serious breach, such as theft, the law still requires investigation to take place.

โ€œThere isnโ€™t an onus of proof,โ€ warns M+K Lawyers principal Andrew Douglas, โ€œbut you have to be satisfied with regard to more serious allegationsโ€.

โ€œWhile you may form a view on a โ€˜he-says she-saysโ€™ type of argument, you want to be much more positively satisfied with evidence around an allegation of theft because itโ€™s a much more serious accusation.โ€

Shaun Turton was dismissed from Treblec, which is now in liquidation, after the company director sent him a letter accusing him of several breaches including โ€œengaging in theftโ€.

However, Commissioner Ryan noted the business โ€œdid not carry out a reasonable investigationโ€ to determine whether the theft had actually taken place.

โ€œIn fact the material before me suggests that [Treblec] did no more than look at the accounts and then draw the conclusion that [Turton] had engaged in theft,โ€ he said.

The Commissioner found Treblec assumed theft had occurred because Turton had purchased 100 โ€œcutting disksโ€ from a supplier โ€“ an item regularly used in his work.

But the Commissioner then found the Treblec concluded โ€œthat as all 100 cutting disks would not be used immediately then [Turton] had obtained the disks for his own benefitโ€.

โ€œ[Treblec] did not, in any of the material filed with the Commission, suggest that that [Treblec] sought to ascertain the physical whereabouts of the cutting disks nor that [Treblec] had evidence that the cutting disks had been retained by [Turton] for his own benefit.โ€

Turtonโ€™s explanation was that it would be cheaper to buy more disks when buying in bulk.

โ€œA mere allegation of theft does not constitute a sound reason for dismissal and in the present matter [Treblec] alleged but had not established that theft occurred,โ€ the Commissioner found.

Douglas warns there is a legal obligation to investigate these types of accusations, or else it could present a breach in the duty of trust and confidence.

โ€œThere is quite clearly a fairness requirement that an investigation be properly undertaken and the nature of those findings be presented to the employee.โ€

Douglas says itโ€™s important for businesses to follow this type of procedure, not only as a moral obligation but in order to maintain the culture of the company.

โ€œOtherwise, youโ€™re going to block a whole bunch of evidence collection when you act in a way which is totally capricious.โ€