Employee who engaged in misconduct not denied contractual benefits

The applicant, who was employed by the respondent as a Signwriter/Installer, applied to the Commission with a claim of denied contractual benefits. The applicant claimed the respondent had not paid the required payment in lieu of notice and unpaid carers and annual leave, in addition to underpayment of $2 per hour for the first week of her employment.

The applicant was initially employed by the respondent on a casual basis, after which she was offered, and accepted a full-time contract until the employment relationship ended three months later. The applicant contended that she was dismissed by her employer and thus entitled to payment in lieu of notice. The respondent argued that on the day the employment relationship ended, the applicant was behaving aggressively towards staff and customers. The respondent claims that the applicant was then stood down for the day, after which she left and then returned shortly after to return her uniform and demand a separation certificate and her final pay. The respondent further submitted evidence that the applicant had engaged in misconduct by using company equipment for personal use in violation of her employment contract, and damaged cameras to obscure her actions.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant deliberately damaged the cameras to prevent the observation and recording of her activities, and that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Commissioner found that the applicant’s employment contract specifically addressed the issue of using the equipment for personal work and specified that doing so was cause for termination of employment. The Commissioner also found that the applicant had, in breach of the employment contract, used access to confidential information to direct work meant for the respondent to her own business. Applying the doctrine of unclean hands, the Commissioner found that the applicant had engaged in misconduct in breach of the terms of her contract of employment, and ought to be denied the relief sought, dismissing the application.

The decision can be read here