By Mike Toten Freelance Writer

A real estate agency claimed that an employee had deliberately deleted multiple work emails and files from the agency’s IT database, at a time that she was off work and at home drinking alcohol. However, it failed to prove that this happened and the dismissed employee was awarded compensation of $9,231.

 

Facts of case

The employee was a Property Manager. While on her way to a property inspection, she suffered a panic attack while driving. She went to a doctor who issued a certificate stating she was unfit for work. She bought some alcohol on her way home and consumed it there, accompanied by her sister.

The employer claimed that soon after arriving home a remote login to her work account took place with authentication approved by her. As a result, “mass files” including emails, calendar entries and “critical electronic files” were either deleted or redirected.

The employer claimed that there was “no reasonable explanation” other than the employee must have done it, but the employee totally denied it. She claimed she did not know how to set up an email redirection command. There was evidence that two management employees could also have access to the employee’s work account.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that a report by the employer’s external IT management provider did not identify how, if at all, the alleged deletions and redirections had occurred. Also, the email address they were allegedly redirected to was either inactive or didn’t exist.

The employer had declined the employee’s offer to inspect her laptop, and dismissed her for serious misconduct. The FWC said that inspection would have determined whether it could have been used to delete or redirect information. The employer also claimed that there had been “performance issues” with the employee previously, and suggested that may have provided motivation for her alleged misconduct. However, the FWC found insufficient evidence of performance problems and said that a “warning” she had received about a month earlier was deficient.

The employee’s sister had been with her at the time of the alleged incident, and supported the employee’s claim that she did not access her phone or laptop after arriving home that day.

 

Decision

The FWC said that the employer should have suspended the employee pending a proper investigation of the matter that included inspecting her laptop. Instead, it had dismissed her unfairly. It awarded compensation of $9,231 to the employee, to cover the gap between her dismissal and obtaining new employment.

 

What this means for employers

The employer lost this case because it did not follow a proper process before dismissing the employee. Its investigation of the matter was inadequate, as it failed to prove that the employee had mishandled the work files. Inspecting her laptop was a simple and obvious step that it should have taken to gain more information and possibly proof that the employee was involved (or not).

Also, as the FWC said, it should have suspended the employee instead of dismissing her before it had conducted a proper investigation.

 

Read the judgment

Mrs Sharron Pike v Agius Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 113 (4 April 2025)