Case Summary: HOMES v COLES GROUP LTD[2014] FWC 1013Fair Work CommissionUnfair dismissal — Importance of effective investigations

FACTS Coles provided employees at a warehouse with Milo drinking chocolate to enjoy during their breaks. One employee had a unique way of consuming Milo by mixing it with other ingredients of his own creation.

He would take a small amount of Milo home daily to blend it with drinking chocolate, coffee, and raw sugar, bringing the mixture back to work the following day. Upon receiving a report that the employee was seen taking Milo without authorization, Coles security stopped and questioned him as he left work.

Case Summary: HOMES v COLES GROUP LTD[2014] FWC 1013Fair Work CommissionUnfair dismissal — Importance of effective investigations

During the encounter, the employee provided conflicting responses, mentioning both bringing the Milo from home and taking it from work. Subsequently, Coles suspended the employee and conducted a formal inquiry eleven days later. During the investigation, the employee clarified his process and expressed feeling surprised and bewildered by the aggressive questioning from security.

Ultimately, Coles terminated the employee, citing a violation of its code of conduct due to the unauthorized removal of Milo and dishonesty during the security interrogation.

QUESTION: Was the termination of the employee unjust, considering the employer's pre-dismissal procedure?

VERDICT: The Fair Work Commission acknowledged that on the specific day, the employee inadvertently left some Milo behind, prompting him to bring the mixture to work and store it in his bag instead of his locker.

The commission determined that the employee consumed the mixture only at work and took it home for personal use. Notably, Coles supplied Milo for employee consumption at the workplace, which the employee complied with.

The security guard's questioning failed to yield substantial responses due to the interrogative approach. Given the circumstances, the employee's confusion was reasonable and did not indicate deceitfulness.

Coles' deficient investigation led to the wrongful dismissal of the employee for an innocent action. Consequently, the commission ruled in favor of reinstating the employee.