School IT officer forwarded a colleague's resignation email to herself

What happened

Karen Auzins had worked for the WA Department of Education for about 17 years. She was the Level 3 school-based network support officer at Kelmscott Senior High School, responsible for the school's IT, and a newer network support officer worked under her.

The two did not get on. The school's corporate services manager described the relationship as clearly fractured, and said Ms Auzins had told her she would deal with her junior colleague only by email unless a witness was present. On 18 May 2023 the junior officer emailed the manager to resign, describing what she saw as poor treatment by Ms Auzins.

The junior officer had a work mobile that served as the IT helpdesk phone. She gave evidence that Ms Auzins told her not to put a passcode on it, not to take it home and to keep it in the IT room. On Monday 22 May 2023 she was working at another school all day, having left the phone on a desk in the IT room the Friday before.

At 3:34pm that afternoon, the resignation email was forwarded from the junior officer's account to Ms Auzins' own work address. CCTV showed Ms Auzins entering the area leading to the IT room at 3:28pm and staying until 3:37pm. The next day she raised the email with the manager and said the colleague had sent it to her.

The investigation and dismissal

The department investigated two allegations: that she had accessed her colleague's emails on the phone without authorisation, and that she had forwarded the confidential email to herself. When she received the allegation letter, she rang the investigator and said she was not at school that afternoon. She then sent him her own copy of her timesheet, saying it showed she left at 1:30pm. The school's copy showed her finishing at 4:00pm.

Ms Auzins did not correct her account until November 2023, when her union said she had mixed up the days. The department dismissed her on 27 November 2023 and paid her in lieu of notice. Its letter pointed to her "attempts to fabricate certain details" and said a lesser penalty would not give it the trust and confidence it needed in her.

The appeal and the legal test

As a public sector employee disciplined under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA), Ms Auzins appealed to the Public Service Appeal Board, a three-member board of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. She denied touching the phone, argued the CCTV did not show the IT room itself, and said her years of service made dismissal disproportionate.

The Board reviewed the dismissal de novo, meaning it looked at the matter afresh rather than just checking the employer's process. That also meant any unfairness in the investigation could be cured at the hearing. Because it was her appeal, Ms Auzins had the onus of persuading the Board to change the outcome.

The misconduct had to be proved to the Briginshaw standard. This is still the balance of probabilities, but serious allegations need careful, precise proof, and circumstantial evidence is not enough if there is another explanation that is not improbable. The final question was whether the dismissal was harsh, oppressive or unjust.

How the Board decided it

The Board found the phone was in or near the IT room, and that the email was sent from it because it was marked "Sent from Outlook Mobile". No one entered through the IT room's outside door that day, and Ms Auzins was the only person in the combined area when the email was sent. At the hearing she said the internal door was always locked, but her own earlier statements had described the room as open to anyone, and the Board found the door was kept open during the day.

The Board accepted that she was allowed to check the helpdesk phone, yet still found both allegations proven. She also did not call her office colleague or her husband to back up her account of discovering the email, and the Board held it was entitled to infer their evidence would not have helped her.

The timesheet weighed heavily. Her copy matched the school's in every respect except the entry for 22 May. The Board found she had been dishonest in telling the investigator she was not at work, and that she fabricated a timesheet to support that claim.

On penalty, she had said she had no prior disciplinary record, but the Board found two earlier disciplinary matters and gave that claim no weight. It also found she had not returned a school-bought iPhone, conduct that came to light after the dismissal and could itself have justified it. Even allowing for her 17 years of service, the Board found no sufficient mitigating factors and dismissed the appeal.

What this means for you

If you are given access to a colleague's device for one job, use it only for that job. An unlocked phone or a shared room does not make a colleague's private emails yours to read or pass on.

If you face allegations at work, be careful and accurate in your response. Check your records before you answer, and it is fine to say you need time to do so. An answer that turns out to be false can do more damage than the original allegation. If you are a WA public sector employee facing a disciplinary process, it is worth getting advice early, because the time limits to challenge a decision are short.