In this matter the employer utilised video evidence to track the basis of a $24.00 shortfall in the takings. This was only after the employee alleged that a customer had changed their mind and chose not to purchase a product from the bottle sales. It appears that the employer must have contacted the alleged customer to determine what occurred. The customer’s version did not align to that of the employee.
The video evidence indicated that the employee appeared to take cash from the till and immediately moved her hand up under her blouse. It is uncertain as to whether the video was viewed prior to or after consulting with the customer.
What is important in this case is that the Industrial Relations Commission has upheld the fact that trust is an important fundamental element and necessary ingredient in an employment relationship. Where this is trust is broken through an act of serious misconduct by an employee, an employer has the right to end the relationship. I preface this by stating provided an employer properly investigates alleged misconduct and follows procedural fairness processes prior to any termination.
Of course there are always other factors to be taken into consideration such as the value of the theft, the circumstances under which it occurred and the length of service of the employee. All these aspects need to be considered as part of an overall considered approach. Where an employee took money that was perhaps lying idly from some time and the employee had 25 years of service without fault and the amount taken was a couple of dollars may have seen a different outcome. Incidentally this employee in question had worked with their employer for four years and I was not privy to performance or conduct issues.
In this case the employer did allow the employee to put their view of what occurred however the employer did not allow the employee to view the video surveillance tape. By not doing so the Commission stated that the employers process was slightly flawed however not sufficiently so to review the termination.
Again this case suggests that due to the number of variants that can arise when considering these issues there is merit in contacting your Association to talk through the issues and with you develop a strategy going forward. Of course the underlying issues in this case as well would have been whether the employer had properly complied with video surveillance notification requirements as required under these laws. In such cases at the very least, employers should provide signage and advise staff if their workplace is under such surveillance. Of course the introduction of surveillance policies should be recorded and sufficient notice given. Members that subscribe to MTA’s Employment Relations Information System (ERIS) can access a wealth of information on surveillance within the Employment Privacy section. Members interested in subscribing to ERIS may go to www.eris.com.au for more information.
