Author: Nicky Hardwick
In this edition, we examine a case where a senior employee’s unauthorised use of company vehicles and staff, motivated by personal hardship, led to a breakdown in trust and eventual dismissal. It’s a cautionary tale of blurred lines, failed boundaries, and the consequences of choosing convenience over compliance.
The situation
A manager facing transportation issues following a personal vehicle accident began using company vehicles and junior staff to run personal errands, including school lifts, trips to mechanics, and even post-work travel.
Despite being explicitly denied permission to use company vehicles for personal purposes, the employee instructed multiple team members to chauffeur him on at least 79 private trips, totalling over 1,100 km across several months.
He admitted to the behaviour, claiming desperation, intent to reimburse, and a lack of personal support. But tracker data, staff interviews, and prior written warnings painted a different picture.
Lessons learnt
- Desperation doesn’t excuse deliberate misconduct
The employee claimed hardship and intent to repay, but intent does not undo repeated breaches of policy. Employers must act based on what was done, not what was meant.
- Silence isn’t loyalty, it’s enabling
Several junior staff followed instructions to transport their manager, despite knowing it was inappropriate. Their silence, though understandable, reflected a lack of clear reporting structures and workplace accountability.
- Leaders must lead by example
A supervisor sets the tone. When a leader misuses resources and disregards protocol, it sends a message that rules are optional, not essential.
- The value of contribution doesn’t cancel out misconduct
While the employee had a track record of saving the company significant money through process improvements and supplier negotiations, it wasn’t enough to overcome the magnitude of the ethical breach.
The outcome
The chairperson recommended summary dismissal, citing:
- A serious breach of company policy
- Wilful disregard of a direct instruction
- Misuse of organisational resources
- Involvement of junior staff in unethical conduct
- Erosion of the trust required for a leadership role
The employee’s contributions were noted but could not outweigh the breakdown in trust and failure to model appropriate workplace conduct.
Key takeaways for employers
- Leadership starts with integrity
Senior employees must be held to the highest standard – one that models trust, responsibility, and respect for process. - Make your policies enforceable, not optional
Clarity is critical, but so is follow-through. Ensure that exceptions are documented, and disciplinary processes are consistently applied. - Protect junior staff from being caught in the middle
Establish anonymous reporting channels or escalation points for staff to raise concerns when power dynamics prevent direct reporting. - Compassion should not override accountability
Support employees through hardship, but make sure compassion does not create a loophole for misconduct.
How we help
We support organisations in:
- Designing and communicating clear policies on resource use
- Training leadership on ethical decision-making
- Facilitating disciplinary processes that are fair, impartial, and legally sound
- Creating whistleblower channels and protection protocols
Do you need support navigating ethical leadership and disciplinary procedures? Reach out to us at [email protected].
COMING NEXT in “On the Case”
A calculated breach: When a trusted employee manipulates the system
Our October instalment examines a complex case of sustained and deliberate dishonesty involving a senior employee whose knowledge of internal systems became a tool for significant financial misconduct. Despite years of good service, a trail of falsified overtime claims, manipulated data, and ignored instructions exposed deep-rooted fraud – triggering summary dismissal.