Skip to main content

Former IGA supermarket worker loses unfair dismissal case after taking items home without paying

The Fair Work Commission has decided despite having “considerable sympathy” for a staff member who says he was told it was okay to take items from an IGA store without paying, his employer was within its right to sack him.
In an unfair dismissal case decision handed down yesterday, Fair Work Commission deputy president Reg Hamilton ruled it was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable for a director of the Castlemaine IGA supermarket to dismiss a staff member who was found to have left the store with three items he had not paid for.
The Commission heard that on February 7, the director stopped and searched the staff member and found the three items that were being removed from the store. Police were called but no charges were laid, and the staff member was summarily dismissed that day.
The employer had clear policies in place around the removal of stock, and could indicate several aspects of its code of conduct policies that prohibited this.
However, when launching unfair dismissal proceedings, the staff member claimed he had not really been trained in the policies, and that his supervisor in the workplace had authorised him and other staff members to take home items without payment in the past.
This policy was not known to the director of the company, who told the Commission he was completely unaware of that arrangement.
In the decision on the case, deputy president Hamilton reflected that the staff member appeared to concede to some “ambiguity” on the arrangement of taking items from the store, and observed it was a clear breach of company policies anyway.
“Employees are or should be aware that it is not appropriate to mix private and employer property,” Hamilton said.
Given the arrangement to take stock for free was not bona fide, the Commission decided the dismissal was just and that the staff member should have known any arrangements were still a breach of policy.
“I have considerable sympathy for [the staff member], but he has made a serious mistake,” deputy president Hamilton said.

Theft taken very seriously

This case indicates employers can be protected from managerial staff coming up with their own rules, as long as a strong company policy is put in place from the start.
What the deputy president pointed out is that even though [the worker] relied on his supervisor’s authority to take items, he couldn’t rely on ignorance,
“He should have been aware that the arrangements might not have been ideal or appropriate.” In this case, the fact that the employer had formal loss prevention and staff conduct policies in place helped ensure the dismissal was fair.
“It shows for employers if you have these policies, even if they were done some time ago, they can still be relied on,”
However, the Fair Work Commission did say the case was complicated by the fact that some staff believed they were authorised to take items from the store.
It is advisable that small business owners should consider creating clear information for staff about hierarchical structures within the business, so all workers know who has the final say when it comes to workplace policies. making it clear in policies who has the ultimate say — always directing employees back to the big boss so that there’s no confusion. 
In broader terms the legal system treats theft at work very seriously, and employers do have protections when it comes to staff taking stock.
AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide


Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations
www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/

  
Labels:
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...
Post a Comment
Read more