Was she entitled to allowances? Fair Work examines unfair dismissal claim
A former administrator recently filed an unfair dismissal application, alleging she was fired after her employer said she “falsely claimed” allowances from the company.
On October 26, 2023, the worker, Rachel Edwards, filed a complaint with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), alleging unfair dismissal from her job at Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd.
The worker began her role as a site administrator on August 25, 2020. In July 2023, the employer initiated an investigation, suspecting the worker of wrongly claiming and receiving an allowance.
Consequently, the worker was suspended with pay during the investigation, which led to the termination of her employment due to allegedly falsely claiming the Site Uplift Allowance.
The worker argued that there was no valid reason for her dismissal and disputed the allegations, asserting that the rules for claiming the allowance were not clearly defined, and all her timesheets had been approved by her project manager without any attempt from the employer to verify the information.
She contended that the investigation into the allegations was procedurally flawed, and she was not given a genuine opportunity to address the accusations against her.
In response, the employer maintained that the worker knowingly submitted inaccurate timesheets to claim the allowance, emphasizing the seriousness of her actions given her role as a site administrator, responsible for managing personnel and accurately recording their work hours and other relevant details.
The employer added that the allowance only applied to on-site work, not when working from home, and the worker had inaccurately recorded her presence on-site on certain days.
The employer further contended that while there was a review and approval process for timesheets, employees in the site administrator role were entrusted to accurately input information, representing a significant expense for the business when paid by the employer.
The FWC noted the worker's credibility as a witness, describing her as forthright and consistent in her position.
Upon examination of the evidence, the FWC found that the worker's actions regarding the allowance were in line with her understanding of the employer's processes, which appeared to be more a matter of custom and practice than firm policy.
The FWC also highlighted the inconsistency and lack of clarity in the company's documentation and implementation of the rules governing the allowance.
The FWC pointed out the ambiguity in the employer's documentation regarding the allowance, noting discrepancies in the wording of contracts and the Employee Manual.
It was observed that the contracts stated the allowance was payable when an employee was "on site and allocated to site," while in practice, the evidence suggested that it should be interpreted as "or" rather than "and."
Additionally, the Employee Manual stated that the allowance would not apply to work performed at home, yet the employer's evidence indicated that it was paid when approved by senior management.
The FWC raised concerns about the inconsistent application of the allowance, particularly in the context of employees flying to and from the site. It noted contradictions in the rules of the allowance and the actual practices observed, highlighting the lack of clarity in addressing circumstances where an employee flies into the site later in the day.
The FWC accepted the worker's evidence that she occasionally adjusted her rosters and worked from home to assist the employer, and in such instances, she was advised by her project manager that the allowance was payable.
Ultimately, the FWC's decision shed light on the discrepancies and inconsistencies surrounding the allowance, emphasizing the need for greater clarity and consistency in the employer's policies and practices.
Thus, the FWC said that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It then ordered the employer to pay her compensation.
