Employee said he wasn't sure about procedure to claim certain expenses
An Alberta employee who was fired for a questionable expense report was wrongfully dismissed, the Alberta Provincial Court has ruled.
Gang Chen, 40, was hired on Jan. 11, 2010, by DCL Siemens Engineering, a civil engineering firm in Edmonton. A Chinese native, Chen worked as a designer, technician and surveyor until he became a registered engineer in Alberta.
As part of his employment contract, DCL reimbursed Chen for vehicle mileage, out-of-town lodging, and meals when he worked at remote sites. In November 2010, Chen submitted an expense claim for $8,280.80, but DCL only paid $5,991 because the company reduced its daily meal allowance.
DCL also reduced the amount of mileage it paid Chen, as it adjusted the distance between his home and the worksite by four kilometers, using Google Maps as an estimate. DCL also found out Chen was in a car accident one day and he got a ride home with another employee, but still claimed the mileage. Chen claimed he intended to return to get his car and would have driven the distance anyway, so the claim was a “pre-paid expense.”
On Dec. 3, 2010, management discussed Chen’s expense claim, and Chen outlined his expenses for driving to the worksite versus staying onsite. At an initial meeting, Chen submitted his numbers and no one questioned him about specifics. A second meeting involved questions about his field reports, but nothing about expenses.
On Dec. 13, a third meeting was held and Chen was told his November expense claim would be reduced because of the client’s budget. Some details were discussed and Chen revealed his car accident and the ride home for the first time.
DCL determined that Chen’s expense claim was fraudulent, due to the claim of mileage when he had a ride home and the discrepancies in the distance he travelled to the site from that on Google Maps. There was also an issue with mileage Chen claimed in travelling to another job site when he was actually working at another one.
On Dec. 14, DCL terminated Chen’s employment for violating the engineer code of conduct and submitting a fraudulent expense report. Chen claimed he was unsure of how to charge mileage when he was working on two projects at the same time, so he charged the mileage together.
The court found Chen’s explanation for the other job site mileage made sense, and Chen was direct and forthright in explaining it. It found Chen’s intention was to ensure he was reimbursed for both jobs, with no intention to deceive, said the court.
The court also found Chen should not have claimed the mileage when he got a ride home, but this was poor judgment rather than dishonesty. Because he planned to drive back in his own car, it was an expense he believed at the time he submitted his claim, said the court.
