Cash guard sacked after $58,710 went missing wins her job back

What happened

Kelly Bedford worked for Linfox Armaguard, a cash-in-transit company, from August 2013 as an armoured vehicle operator, sometimes acting as crew leader. On 1 March 2018 she volunteered to swap runs with a crew leader who did not want his, and set out with a co-worker who had more seniority and experience than she did.

Around midday the truck's doors began to malfunction: pressing the inner door button opened the outer door at the same time, a security breach. Ms Bedford rang her supervisor, who replied, "Oh no, not again, same issues as last week". He told her there were no spare trucks or crew, so she kept going.

At the next client the outer door failed to latch when she swung it shut. When the pair came back with a bag of cash, the door was open but no alarm had gone off. Her co-worker checked inside and nodded, and she put the bag in the transfer safe, a hatch loaded from outside that must be emptied from inside. Company policy forbids carrying cash in it.

Ms Bedford then spent her time on the phone about the doors and the unfinished run. The bag was never moved. Back at the depot a despatch clerk marked it as received. Days later the truck went to an outside workshop, where the $58,710 was stolen. The money was later recovered.

The investigation and the dismissal

Armaguard held three meetings with Ms Bedford in April 2018. She had a support person each time, but she was not told that the meetings were disciplinary or that her job was in jeopardy. She saw the CCTV footage only at the last meeting, on 13 April 2018. After waiting about five hours, she was read a letter summarily dismissing her: dismissed on the spot, without notice.

The letter said she had failed to secure the cash, failed to search the truck when unloading, and entered a vehicle that might have been breached. Her managers had also concluded, without putting it to her, that she had been untruthful in interviews and had marked the run sheet herself.

Why: the legal test

Under s 385 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), a dismissal is unfair if, among other things, it was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Section 387 lists what the Commission must weigh: whether there was a valid reason related to the worker's capacity or conduct, whether the worker was told of that reason and given a chance to respond, and any other relevant matter.

A valid reason is one that is "sound, defensible or well founded". The Commission decides for itself what the worker actually did, and whether it was serious enough to justify dismissal. A dismissal can be harsh because it is out of proportion to the misconduct, or because of its effect on the worker's personal and economic situation.

What the Commission decided

Deputy President Asbury found that, at worst, Ms Bedford had been negligent and careless, and that she was only partly responsible for a string of failures in Armaguard's own systems. Clearing the transfer safe at the client's premises was primarily her co-worker's job, and she had been distracted by a faulty truck she had been told to keep driving. The handbook did not say what to do when a door was open but no alarm had sounded.

It was the despatch clerk, not Ms Bedford, who had circled the missing bag as received; the cash count missed it, the receipt went astray, and there was no procedure for checking the truck before it went for repairs. Armaguard had since brought in such a check, which the Deputy President called "telling". As she put it, "There were many fingers in the pie". She also rejected the claim of dishonesty: more than 30 days had passed, and Ms Bedford had simply not remembered.

The process failed too. Holding meetings with support persons was the right form, but not the right substance. The key allegations, including dishonesty, were never put to her, and lesser penalties such as removing her crew leader role, retraining or a final warning were never considered. The dismissal was harsh and unreasonable.

The remedy, and what happened next

Reinstatement, getting the job back, is the primary remedy for unfair dismissal. The Deputy President found the manager's loss of trust was not soundly based, and ordered Ms Bedford reinstated with her continuous service intact. Her lost pay to 21 December 2018 came to $58,274.64, cut by 30% for her own carelessness to $40,792.25, plus $3,875.26 superannuation.

Her co-worker, with 17½ years' service, was also reinstated in a separate decision, with his lost pay cut by 60% because he bore more of the blame. Armaguard tried to appeal his case; on 31 January 2019 a Full Bench refused permission to appeal. Armaguard did not appeal Ms Bedford's decision. The test it applied is still the law: the only change to these sections since, an amendment to s 387 in 2021, concerns sexual harassment.

What this means for you

If you are sacked over a mistake you admit, it is still worth asking whether dismissal fitted what you did, and what part your employer's own systems played. For employers, the lesson is to tell a worker plainly that their job is at risk, put every allegation and the evidence behind it, and consider lesser penalties. A Fair Work unfair dismissal claim must be lodged within 21 days of the dismissal taking effect.