Collusion and theft uncovered by CCTV
This arbitration concerned the dismissal of a driver accused of colluding with colleagues in the unauthorised removal of company property from the employer's premises. The employee challenged the substantive fairness of his dismissal, alleging that there was insufficient evidence linking him to the misconduct.
The employer's case rested on a carefully constructed chain of circumstantial evidence. Following a tip-off regarding the planned removal of company property, management tracked the movement of the stolen goods and obtained CCTV footage from a nearby filling station. The footage captured a vehicle collecting the stolen item shortly after it left company premises.
What made the evidence particularly compelling was the number of unique features linking the vehicle in the footage to the employee's personal vehicle. These included the make and colour of the car, a damaged rear light, a missing bumper strip, a tow bar, and a distinctive blue hard hat visible in the rear window. Collectively, these features created a highly persuasive evidentiary picture that was difficult to rebut.
The employee denied involvement and claimed he was at home on the day in question. However, his version was found to be inconsistent and lacked corroboration. His explanations shifted over time, and he failed to call supporting witnesses to substantiate his alibi. The commissioner ultimately found his version improbable when weighed against the employer's objective evidence.
Why we succeeded
- A coherent evidentiary narrative — Documentary evidence, CCTV footage and credible witness testimony combined into a single, persuasive account the commissioner accepted.
- The probabilities favoured the employer — The commissioner found that the probabilities overwhelmingly supported the employer's version of events.
- Trust was irreparably broken — Given the seriousness of the dishonesty and collusion, the trust relationship could not be sustained.
- Dismissal was an appropriate sanction — Weighed against the misconduct, dismissal was held to be both fair and proportionate.