The woman was employed as a customer service specialist with a Brisbane credit union. After 18 years in the banking industry and six with the credit union, she had an exemplary employment record. However, she had apparently developed the habit of using the employer's account at a local coffee shop to cover her personal coffee expenses.

She appeared to think this was justified because other branches of the credit union permitted a coffee machine in the branch, and it was ‘just coffee’.

Her employer had a different view of the matter. The local area manager had made it clear in November 2019 that the credit union’s coffee account was to be used only for members, not staff.

In March 2020 after the customer service specialist was accused of misusing the coffee account, it was clarified to her that the account was not for staff’s personal use. 

In response to growing concerns around the use of the coffee account, the employer undertook an investigation, and in June 2020 new paperwork was introduced, for completion by staff, to reconcile the orders for complimentary coffees with the invoice charged to the employer.

On 25 June the customer service specialist was given a letter advising her that her unauthorised purchases of coffee were considered to be in breach of the credit union’s Fraud and Ethics and Integrity Policy. Her conduct was considered to amount to theft.

‘Our concern is that you have demonstrated a serious failure to comply with [the company’s] policies and expectations, so much so that we feel we have lost trust and confidence in you,’ the letter said. She was required to show cause, in writing, as to why her employment should not be terminated.

In her response, she denied the allegations. A week later, she was informed that her theft amounted to serious misconduct, the employer’s trust in confidence in her had been broken and her employment was terminated as of 1 July.

She applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission’s view: honesty is essential in the financial sector

The former customer service specialist was asking for reinstatement to her position with continuity of service, and back pay for the period between the date of this decision and her termination.

In what must be the most exhaustive examination of a person’s coffee habits ever undertaken, the FWC’s 22,000-word decision considered every conceivable aspect of the case, including the cost and types of the various beverages available from the café and details of purchases and preferences at various times of day, types of milk, and even her change of preference when menstruating.

The value of the coffees she was alleged to have purchased on her employer’s account totalled $101.70. Nevertheless, her employer considered that her illegitimate use of the coffee account, together with her having made covert recordings during the investigation, and her attempts to divert, downplay and pass blame undermined any possibility of an ongoing ‘trust filled’ work relationship, requiring honesty and integrity between all persons.

At the hearing, the former employee caused the Commissioner to form the opinion that she did not make a truthful witness, and her evidence was found to be lacking in credibility.

The Commissioner expressed the view that in the financial services sector – an industry requiring demonstrated high levels of integrity – if an individual is untruthful over transactions of only around $100, there was an ‘opportunity for further misadventure’ if it was not promptly addressed. Her conduct had struck at the heart of her duties, to be honest in all her transactions involving the workplace.

The Commissioner noted that the woman’s prior unblemished length of service, the financial impact of losing her job and the relatively small amount of money involved were all matters to be taken into account when assessing whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. 

These matters, however, had to be balanced against the woman’s conduct, and after weighing up all of the relevant considerations, the Commissioner found that the dismissal was not harsh. 

The former employee had engaged in serious misconduct and the termination of her employment was justified. The dismissal was not unjust, disproportionate or otherwise unreasonable considering the conduct and the other circumstances that had to be taken into account.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The bottom line: Honesty and integrity in work-related transactions is expected in all occupations, and is critical in the financial sector.

Read the judgment: Lynelle Ajax v Credit Union Australia Ltd [2021] FWC 3165 (4 June 2021)