Don’t lie to your boss: Why dishonesty ruins unfair dismissal cases

A Sydney bus driver who was dismissed for lying about using his mobile phone while driving had his unfair dismissal claim rejected by the Fair Work Commission. The driver denied the accusation, despite CCTV footage showing him using his phone. His subsequent dishonesty ruins his unfair dismissal claim.

As a devout Sikh, he instead claimed that he had been handling a “devotional diary.” He described himself to the Commission as “the most honest driver” at his bus depot. This was quickly proven untrue when the CCTV footage was reviewed at his unfair dismissal hearing.

Don’t lie to your employer

If you have been dismissed for dishonesty, the truth will always come out at a Fair Work Commission hearing. We’ve seen many workers who were sacked for dishonesty attempt to appeal their sacking via the Commission. The one lesson from these past cases is; don’t lie to your employer.

In this article, we look at the case of the Sydney bus driver – Manjeet Singh v CDC NSW Region 4 Pty Ltd T/A CDC NSW [2025]. We also look at another recent case of an IT worker who lied about his Covid vaccination status and continually lied about why he could not return to the office. His dishonest behaviour even saw the Commission consider referring him to the police.

Bus driver’s lies unravel at the Fair Work Commission

Manjeet Singh began working for bus operator CDC NSW in August 2007. In May 2024, he had told his employer that he had possibly incurred an injury due to a driving incident a few days prior. CDC NSW subsequently launched a workplace investigation, which involved watching CCTV footage.

From this review, the company determined that Mr Singh had been using his mobile phone while driving the bus. Shortly thereafter, he was sent a show cause letter highlighting his serious misconduct.

CCTV footage revealed the truth

In the letter, CDC NSW said that the footage from 5 May 2024 showed Mr Singh reaching for his pocket to retrieve his phone while the bus was moving. It claimed that he then went hands-free on the steering wheel while he used his phone, while not looking at the road. It said that this series of events was “proven” and “simply cannot be refuted.”

CDC NSW said that Mr Singh’s infraction was a serious violation of road safety regulations and endangered the safety of others on the road. It said that he had breached his legal obligations as a driver and violated several company policies. CDC NSW said that this amounted to serious misconduct and that it was considering disciplinary action in the form of instant dismissal.

Mr Singh was told that he was stood down from his position. He was invited to a meeting where he could show cause as to why he should not be dismissed.

Driver disputed basic facts of incident

At the show cause meeting, Mr Singh denied that there even was a driving incident. He also denied that he had suffered an injury. After the shift in question, he claimed that he told his manager that he had a sore shoulder and was tired, rather than that he was injured.

Mr Singh claimed that his phone had been switched off prior to driving that day. He said he was a “senior driver” and claimed to “understand the rules” about not using your phone while driving. He said that he did not remember ever touching his phone.

Mr Singh also took issue with CDC NSW viewing the CCTV footage of him driving the bus. He claimed that the company had a CCTV privacy policy that required the permission of workers to view CCTV footage of them. He claimed that the company could only view footage 15 minutes before and after the driving incident, but that CDC NSW had violated this limitation.

Self-described ‘most honest driver in the depot’ denied using phone

Following the show cause meeting, on 7 August 2024 CDC NSW summarily dismissed Mr Singh for serious misconduct. It reiterated that he had breached several policies and laws by using his phone while driving. Mr Singh subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. He chose to represent himself at the Fair Work Commission hearing.

In his claim, Mr Singh argued that he should not have been sacked as he did not in fact use his phone while driving. He said that as a Sikh, he would be committing blasphemy by providing false information to the Commission. He also described himself to the Fair Work Commission as “the most honest driver in the depot.”

Mr Singh sought reinstatement to his position. He highlighted his “unblemished” 17-year record of driving at CDC NSW. Despite claiming in the show cause meeting that he had not been injured, Mr Singh said in his claim that he had a “workplace injury.” He said that this had made it difficult to find a new job as it required a staged return to work process.

Claimed he was handling ‘devotional diary’

In his claim, Mr Singh said that the item that was in his hand as shown in the CCTV footage was not a phone. Rather, it was a “devotional diary.” However, CDC NSW argued to the Fair Work Commission that this was completely untrue. It highlighted that during the investigation process and the show cause meeting Mr Singh never mentioned that the item was a diary.

The company said that the first mention that it was a diary was in Mr Singh’s unfair dismissal application. It said that injecting the diary story into proceedings was a “farfetched and fanciful” attempt to clear his name. CDC NSW argued that Mr Singh’s infraction violated several policies and laws, and therefore his sacking was fair.

Fair Work made judgement based on CCTV footage

At the unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission watched the CCTV footage and Mr Singh’s reenactment of the events of 5 May 2024. It found that he had in fact handled his mobile phone while driving. The Commission said that his hand and thumb movements showed as much and did not show that he was handling a diary.

It noted that Mr Singh attempted to hide the phone from the view of the CCTV camera, which is something he would not do if he were handling a diary. The Commission also noted that Mr Singh’s reenactment showed that he had struggled to handle the phone. It said that there would have been no struggle to open the diary.

The Fair Work Commission therefore concluded that Mr Singh had lied about handling the diary. It ruled that CDC NSW had a valid reason to dismiss him for serious misconduct.

Unfair dismissal despite procedural issues

Mr Singh had also argued to the Fair Work Commission that CDC NSW had denied him procedural fairness. He said that he was not given the chance to respond to the findings of the investigation prior to his sacking. The Commission accepted that CDC NSW had invited him to a show cause meeting. While this was not “best practice,” the Commission said this meeting did give Mr Singh the opportunity to respond.

CDC NSW also erred by using “conclusive” wording in the show cause letter sent to Mr Singh. The Commission, however, deemed the seriousness of his offence to outweigh these procedural failings.

Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission decided that Mr Singh had not been unfairly dismissed. His claim was therefore rejected. Dishonesty ruins unfair dismissal claims, and is likely to negatively affect Mr Singh’s reputation amongst his community and peers.

Worker’s lies see unfair dismissal claim fail, gets referred to police

Another recent unfair dismissal case involving a worker who lied is Imran Karim Budhwani v Infosys Technologies Limited [2024]. Indian national Karim Budhwani began working for Infosys Technologies in Sydney in October 2018. He worked as a senior systems engineer, which involved providing support for computers and printers at the company’s North Sydney headquarters.

The issue that eventually saw Mr Budhwani dismissed was precipitated by the onset of Covid-19. Like many employers, Infosys required all employees attendings its offices to be vaccinated. At his unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission noted that Mr Budhwani lied to his employer by saying that he was vaccinated. While being cross-examined, he admitted that he had been caught out lying by Infosys. This was because the company asked to see his vaccination certificate.

Despite lying, Infosys allowed Mr Budhwani to work remotely temporarily. The company claimed that due to his not being in the office, he was not able to perform the duties of his role.

Worker gave shady reasons for not returning to office

In late 2023, Infosys revised its vaccination policy and allowed all unvaccinated employees to return to the office. Mr Budhwani was subsequently instructed by his manager to resume working from the North Sydney office. However, he told his manager that he could not do so as he was no longer living in Sydney. While he did not provide details as to his current living location, Mr Budhwani said that commuting to the office would be a struggle.

He also said that he would need more time before returning to the office. This was because he had a “medical condition” and was taking pain medication. Mr Budhwani claimed that he had consulted with doctors “all around the world” and estimated that he could return to the office in March 2024.

Worker refused return to office direction

Infosys subsequently requested Mr Budhwani to provide a medical certificate. He did so, from a doctor based in Maleny, Queensland. This was the first indication to Infosys that Mr Budhwani was living outside of New South Wales.

On 24 November 2023, Infosys formally instructed Mr Budhwani to return to the office by 11 December. In a letter, the company outlined several aspects of his role that Mr Budhwani had failed to satisfy due to working remotely. He was told that he needed to return unless he could provide further evidence to justify his continued remote work arrangement.

Mr Budhwani replied via email stating that he had a medical condition, attaching the same medical certificate he had provided earlier. He said that he has “explained more than enough” about the condition and “do not wish to share any further information.”

Worker continued to lie

Infosys replied to Mr Budhwani saying that his medical certificate stated that he was unfit for work. He was therefore asked to formally apply for leave for the duration of time stated in the certificate. Mr Budhwani was also asked to confirm his current location and to provide the approvals he received to relocate.

Mr Budhwani did not respond to this email. Instead, he set an automatic email reply stating he was on leave until 11 December. When his manager received this reply, it was the first time he knew that Mr Budhwani was taking leave. However, the manager had not approved any leave and discovered that Mr Budhwani had not submitted a leave request.

Mr Budhwani eventually had a phone call with his manager. He said that he was not refusing to return to the office but needed extra time. He also claimed that he had not submitted a leave request as he had trouble connecting to Infosys’ payroll system.

Worker dismissed for misconduct

The manager then tried to email Mr Budhwani, requesting that he apply for leave and provide a new medical certificate. He yet again was sent an auto-reply email, which stated that he would be on leave for a longer period than noted in his previous auto-reply email.

Mr Budhwani was eventually sent a later outlining allegations of insubordination and working in a different location. He did not show up to a show cause meeting to defend against the allegations. Mr Budhwani was subsequently dismissed by Infosys on 21 December 2023.

Worker gave numerous reasons for absence, including cat sitting

In March 2024, Mr Budhwani lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. At the hearing, the Commission found that he had repeatedly failed to comply with reasonable and lawful directions from Infosys. It said that there was “nothing illegal” regarding the company’s direction that Mr Budhwani work from the office.

At his unfair dismissal hearing, Mr Budhwani provided varying reasons for not complying with the return to office direction. Initially, he said a “personal emergency” was the reason for his extended leave. However, under questioning he refused to disclose details of the emergency. Later in the hearing he said that he had received an eviction notice and had needed time to relocate before returning to work.

Later, he explained that he had taken leave to spend time with a visiting friend. He also stated that he had to cat sit for some people he met at an Airbnb.

Fair Work Commission considered referral to police

The Fair Work Commission said that Mr Budhwani had provided “inconsistent and contradictory evidence” throughout the hearing. It also called him out for “reprehensible” conduct. Namely, because he had “falsely deallocated” three Infosys laptops. The Fair Work Commissioner said he would refer the matter to the general manager of the Commission. The general manager would then consider whether Mr Budhwani would be referred to the Australian Federal Police.

The Commission ultimately decided that Mr Budhwani’s actions, including his failure to engage meaningfully with his employer and his misleading statements, justified his termination. Mr Budhwani’s unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.

This case highlights how lying to an employer will likely not end well for the employee. Dishonesty ruins unfair dismissal claims, relationships, and jobs.

Conclusion to: Why dishonesty ruins unfair dismissal cases

Give us a call today on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential discussion about your situation. We are not lawyers. Our team at A Whole New Approach are Australia’s top workplace mediators. Gary Pinchen, the principal is considered a leading influencer, commentator and negotiator. We have over three decades’ experience helping the nation’s workers take action through the Fair Work Commission and other tribunals.

Get in touch today to get the justice you deserve. But act fast, as you only have 21 days from the day of your dismissal to lodge an unfair dismissal claim.

Articles similar to “Why dishonesty ruins unfair dismissal cases”

Can your boss spy on you

Husband can’t speak for your wife