The Employment Tribunal described a recent case as "one of the most bizarre cases ever to surface before [it]".
An employee "committed a fraudulent act designed to deliberately and persuasively alter the opinion of the Tribunal in order to give him favourable consideration in his massive claims against his former employer.
It was an act of gross callousness, cunning and deception the likes of which [the] Tribunal has not previously seen".
In 1990, Insight Data employed Mr G as an accounts assistant. During his employment with the company, Mr G passed his accountancy qualifications and, after a series of promotions, became General Manager of Finances and Administration.
In 1995, the Managing Director of Insight Data, Kenneth Williams, decided he would slowly withdraw from active management. He began exploring a profit share scheme
for the company’s three General Managers under which each manager (including Mr G) would receive 20% of the company’s net profit.
Before this scheme was implemented, two of the managers left the company and Mr Williams cancelled the profit share scheme because he could no longer withdraw from active management.
In October 1995, Mr G presented Mr Williams with 60 staff employment contracts for him to sign. Mr G’s own employment contract was included in the pile. Mr Williams signed the last page of each contract, including that of Mr G.
He did so on the understanding that, except for the pay rates, the contracts were all identical. In October 1996, Mr Williams became concerned about the quality of the financial
reports prepared by Mr G and engaged a consultant to review them. The consultant produced a report that was critical of Mr G’s performance and highlighted the poor state of the business.
In December 1996, Mr Williams attended a school camp with his daughter and left another manager, Angela Kilkolly, in charge of the company. He left instructions for her to obtain a financial report from Mr G. Mr G reacted badly to Ms
Kilkolly’s request for the report and sent her a terse note stating that he would provide the report later in the week.
When Mr Williams returned to work he issued Mr G with a written warning about his behaviour and attitude towards Ms Killkolly.
The following day, Mr G sent Mr Williams a memorandum demanding a bonus payment of 20% of the company’s net profit. The two met later that day in the company’s boardroom. Mr G again demanded payment of his bonus. He gave Mr
Williams a copy of his employment contract which contained a clause entitling him to the payment. He then alleged that Mr Williams had signed the contract back in October 1995. Mr Williams knew that he had not agreed to the bonus payment so he
told Mr G to go home and get the original contract. Mr G left, but never again returned to work. Ten days later, Mr Williams terminated Mr G’s employment.
It became readily apparent that Mr G had left things in a mess. GST had not been paid and had penalty payments attached to them. Bills and insurances had not
been paid, payments had not been banked and no reconciliation of the accounts had been carried out. A company employee tried to contact Mr G to find out his computer password so
that she could access the accounts and holiday records, but Mr G never returned her calls. Mr G had also taken for his own use company records, including board minutes and all of the staff employment contracts. These were never returned. Mr
G had two computers belonging to the company at his home which contained financial records. He put these outside in the street for the company to collect, but when they were uplifted they had damaged hard drives.
Mr G later bought proceedings against the company for payment of his bonus, payment of almost $25.000 in holiday pay, and unjustified dismissal. The company
spent thousands of dollars trying to reconstruct its records so that it could defend itself, and over $45,000 in legal fees defending the case.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr G’s case. It held that Mr G had either added new pages containing the bonus payment provision to his employment contract after it was signed, or that Mr Williams had passed over the contents of the
contract lightly after Mr G told him that all of the contracts were identical. Either way, Mr G’s contract was invalid and he could not rely on the clause entitling him to payment of the bonus.
The Tribunal also held that Mr G had given false evidence and concocted documents to present to the Tribunal in support of his claims.
| "It was [Mr G]
who devised this concoction that forced [Data Insight] into defending a case that had little of no paper trail that they could rely on as it had been removed by [Mr G] prior to the time the [company] was aware it was needed ... This was no lightly
perceived plan to get even with the boss. This was a carefully though out plan of deception, lies, fraud and dishonestly which was found out by a team of experts and by company personnel who never gave up trying in the face of some adversity" the
Tribunal said. | | In a rare move, the Tribunal ordered Mr G to pay the company full
solicitor/client costs of $45,566.68 for the trouble and expense he had put it to. This case illustrates the need for employers to take care when signing employment
contracts and to initial each page of the contracts. It also illustrates the dangers of entrusting company records and data to one person, and allowing that person to take
the information off site. A back up should be made of all company records and stored in a secure place on site. | 
