case study   4

 

Withdrawal of application for review

Application

The applicant sought a review under regulation 5.24(2)(a) & (b) of a decision that they had breached the APS Code of Conduct and of the sanctions imposed for that breach.The agency had determined that the employee had breached several elements of the Code of Conduct by using their position within the agency to advantage a family member.

The employee was determined to have breached several elements of the Code of Conduct as follows:

  • s13(7): failure to disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment in that the employee prepared a claim for submission to the agency on behalf of the family member– in relation to this breach, a sanction of a reprimand was imposed
  • s13(5): failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction, in that the employee requested a substantial amount of money as payment for preparation of the claim, in contravention of agency instructions– in relation to this breach a reduction in classification by one level was imposed
  • s13(10): make improper use of inside information or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority to gain a benefit or advantage, in that the employee indicated to the family member that the employee’s knowledge would assist in advantageous/ preferential consideration of the claim–in relation to this breach a fine was imposed
  • s13(8): failure to use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner, for which the employee was counselled
  • s13(11): failure to uphold the APS Values and good reputation of the APS, in that the employee was the subject of a complaint by a member of the public in relation to this matter–the sanction imposed for this was a reprimand.

Review

After considering the evidence in relation to this case, the Merit Protection Commissioner’s reviewer conducted several discussions with the employee to clarify their actions, the context and the inconsistency of the employee’s actions with the APS Values. The employee recognised that they had mistakenly viewed their actions as personal (even though they were accessing official information and resources) and that this had compromised their conduct and responsibilities as an APS employee. In addition, the employee occupied a supervisory position within the agency but had failed to recognise their influence as a role model to other staff.

Outcome

After gaining a better understanding of the APS Values and Code of Conduct, and the purpose of the sanctions, the employee was able to accept the agency’s decision, and the sanctions imposed, as reasonable. The employee subsequently withdrew their application for review.

 

return Return to Analysis of performance