1
[ExtractfromQueenslandGovernmentIndustrialGazette,
dated27January2006,Vol.181,No.4,page107-115]
QUEENSLANDINDUSTRIALRELATIONSCOMMISSION
IndustrialRelationsAct1999 - s.74 - applicationforreinstatement
LiquorHospitalityandMiscellaneousUnion,QueenslandBranch,UnionofEmployees(forJeanetteJames)
ANDCal-MacPtyLtdt/aCalamvaleHotel(B/2005/1084)
COMMISSIONERTHOMPSON / 12January2006Applicationforreinstatement - Witnessevidence - Terminationwarranted - Processflawed - Minimalcompensationawarded.
DECISION
Background
AnapplicationforreinstatementwasfiledbytheLiquorHospitalityandMiscellaneousUnion,QueenslandBranch,UnionofEmployees(theUnion)onbehalfofMsJeanetteJames(theapplicant)on26July2005.
ItwasallegedthatMsJames,aretailattendantfromJanuary2003untilherdismissalon2July2005,wasdismissedforreasonsrelatingtobreachesofstaffrules.
TherespondentwasnamedasCal-MacPtyLtdt/aCalamvaleHotel(therespondent).
Applicant
ThecasefortheapplicantrelieduponevidencegivenintheproceedingsbyMrKieranCrabbeandMsJames.
Crabbe
Asaformeremployeeoftherespondent,MrCrabbe,fromJanuary2003until1July2005,supervisedMsJamesinherpositionwhilstintheemployoftherespondent.
Somesixweeks(atleast)priortohisresignation,hegaveevidenceofaCinzanoAlcoholpromotionbeginning,inwhichacomplimentaryCinzanoglasswasattachedtoeachbottletobesold.
Herecallednotlongafter(dateunknown)thatheservedacustomerwhodidnotwantthetwoglasseswhichhethenremovedandputtooneside.
MsJameshadaskedhimifshecouldkeeptheglasses,towhichherespondedthatshewouldhavetowaituntilthepromotionwasoverwherebyshecouldtaketheremainingglasseshome.
JustificationforallowingMsJamestotaketheglasseswasbaseduponherworkingovertime,coveringextrashifts,andresponsibilitiessuchasorderingwhilstthemanagerwasonleave.
Atparagraph13ofhisaffidavit,hestated:
"ThisissomethingdoneregularlyinallMcGuire'sbarnsasapatonthebackforstaffwhohavebeenperformingwellordoingthatlittleextra,whichIfeltJeanettehadbeendoing.".
Oncommencementofemploymentwiththerespondent,hewastoldbymanagementthathehadpermissiontogiveemployeesleftoverpromotionalmaterialandthiswasadiscretionthathesaidhadnotbeenwithdrawn.
Herecalledattendingameetingshortlybeforeheresignedwheretheissueofpromotionalmaterialwasdiscussedduetoconcernsthatmanagementhadaboutastaffmembertakinghomea "largepromotionalitem".
Atthetime,hegaveMsJamespermissiontotaketheglasseshome,therewasnodirectivefrommanagementpreventinghimfromdoingso.
TheCinzanopromotionwasofthetypethatendedwhenthestockhadrunthrough.
Hewasnotpresenton30June2005whenMsJamestooktheglasseshome.
Whilsthedidnot,atanytime,witnessMsJamesandMrColinPascoeinteracting,MsJameshadmentionedtohimthat,inhisabsence,shehadbeenharassedbyMrPascoe.
HegaveevidenceofadiscussionwithMrDamienMcGuiresometimeafterhehadlefttherespondentandMrMcGuire,beingunhappywithhimsupportingMsJamesbywayofwritingalettertenderedattheconciliationconference.
MsJameshadalwaysbeenahardworkerwhohadconductedherselfwithhonestyatalltimes.
Cross-examinationofMrCrabbeincluded:
PermissionforMsJamestotaketwoCinzanoglasses
Managers' meetingwheretheissueofpromotionalmaterialwasdiscussedinFebruary2005
Wordingonnoticesplacedintheworkplace(page26,line18oftranscript):
"Moore:Sureandso,you'dacceptthatthetwonoticesthatyouviewedasCFB5and6werepostedinthatareaofthehotel?
Crabbe:Yes.
Moore:Andthatthewordingisquitecleartherethat,takingpromotionalmaterialisconsideredtheftandwillresultininstantdismissal?
Crabbe:Yes.".
AllegedharassmentofMsJamesbyMrPascoe.
James
MsJamesgaveevidencerelatingtoheremploymentstatusasacasualFoodandBeverageAttendantLevel2,regularlyworkingbetween40and45hoursperweek.
Ingeneral,herworkwasunderthedirectionofMrCrabbe,however,inhisabsence,thesecond-in-charge,MrNoelSteel,wouldgiveherdirections.
Sometimearoundtheearlypartof2005,accordingtothewitness,MrPascoeoverlyscrutinisedherworkwhenMrCrabbewasabsentfromtheHotel,andwouldtakeeveryopportunitytoharassherovertrivialthingssuchascarparkingandhertillsetup.
ShehadanumberofinteractionswithMrPascoeoverthelayoutofhertill,withsuchdiscussionsbecomingheatedattimes.
InrelationtotheCinzanopromotion,whilstnotrecallingtheexactdate,shewitnessedMrCrabbecutthecellophaneoffthebottlesandsettheglassesaside.
ShehadaskedMrCrabbeforpermissiontotaketheglasseshome,whichwasrefusedonthebasisthatwhenthepromotionfinished,iftherewereglassesleftover,shecouldhavesome.
Fromhercommencementwiththerespondent,shehadbeenallowedtotakenumerous "promos" homeandhadwitnessedotherstaffdoingthesame.
Sheacknowledgedthatsometimeduringheremployment,shewasgivenacopyofthe "CalamvaleTavernStaffRules" which,atRule4statedthat "anemployeefoundtakinghotelproperty,whichincludespromotionalgear,willbedismissed".
InhertimeattheHotel,therehadnotbeenenforcementoftheruleandshe,alongwithotherstaff,thoughtthatManagershadtheauthoritytooverridetherule.
On30June2005,duringthecourseofashift,sherealisedthattheCinzanopromotionwasoverassupplieshadarrivedwithoutglassesattachedtothem.
InrememberingherconversationwithMrCrabbeabouttheglasses,shewrappedtheglassesinnewspaperandputtheminaboxonashelfatthebackofthedrive-through.
Laterthatevening,sheservedamalecustomerwhopurchasedafourpackofJackDanielscanswhichcost$17.99.
Shedeniedunderchargingthecustomer,statingthatshetook$18.00aspayment.
Thecustomerhadayoungchildwithhimwhowantedadrinkwhichwasselectedandpaidforbytheman.
Shehassubsequentlyhadtheopportunitytolookatsurveillancefootageoftheincidentwhich,inherview,confirmsthatthecustomerhandedoverthree$5notesandsomecoins.
Attheconclusionofhershift,shetookanumberofemptyboxestohercar(asshewasmovinghouseattheweekend)aswellastheboxcontainingtheglasses.
Sheworkedthenexttwodayswithoutanyonementioningherremovingtheglassesfromsite.
Attheendofhershifton2July2005,shewasaskedtoattendameetingwithMrPascoe,atwhichMsFrancesMurray,thefunctionsmanager,waspresent.
MrPascoemadeallegationsthatshehadgivenacustomerdiscount(thecustomerreferredtoearlierinthedecision)andthatthechildwithhimwashergranddaughter.
Havingdeniedtheallegations,shewasthenaskedaboutglassesshehadtaken.
SherespondedbyindicatingshehadtakentheCinzanoglassesandthatMrCrabbehadgivenherpermission.
WhenconfrontedbyMrPascoesayingwordstotheeffect "Kieran[Crabbe]wasnothereonThursday - whodidyouask?",shereplied "noone" as "Kieranhadpreviouslygivenpermissiontotakethoseglasses".
ThepermissionfromMrCrabbehadbeengivenafewmonthsbeforehand.
Theconversationwentaroundincirclesforsometime,withhereventuallysayingtoMrPascoe "ListenCol,youdowhatyou'vegottodo".
MrPascoereplied "I'mgoingtohavetoletyougo",towhichshereplied "whatever" andthenwalkedout.
Sincehertermination,shehadbeenunemployedfor10weeksandhadbeenunderenormousfinancialpressuresandstress.
Sheattachedtoheraffidavitat "JMJ1" acopyoftheCalamvaleHotelStaffRuleswhich,atrule4stated:
"AnystaffmemberfoundtakinganyHotelproperty,whichincludespromotionalgear,willbedismissed.".
Undercross-examination,questionsputtothewitnessincluded:
NumberofCinzanoglassestakenbythewitness(page40,line46oftranscript):
"Moore:Thankyou,Commissioner. MsJones,ifIcouldstartbyaskingyouhowmanyCinzanoglassesyousayitisthatyoutookhomewithyouonthe30thJune? Four?...
James:Yes.".
Previouslytakingitemsofapromotionalnature
Witnessesattendanceatastaffmeetingon17February2005(page48,line34oftranscript):
"Moore:You - doyourecallattendingthatstaffmeeting?
James:IwastoldIhadtoattenditquitestrongly,yes,Ido.
Moore:Anddoyourecallwhethertheissueofpromotionalmaterialandtakingpromotionalmaterialwasdiscussedatthatmeeting?
James:What - yeah.
Moore:Yes. What'syourrecollectionofthe - whenyousay, 'Itwasbroughtup.' What'syourrecollectionof - ofthat?
James:Icouldn'tgiveyouwordingexactlythatwasusedbutIdoknowthatitwasboughtupandmentionedaboutthepromotionalitemsbeingremoved.
Moore:Andanythingfurtherotherthanpromotionalitemsbeingremoved;wasthere - - ?
James:LikeIsaid,Idon'trememberexactwordingbutitwouldfollowalltheirwording,Idaresay.
Moore:Asperpolicy;isthatremovalofpromotionalitemswouldleadtotermination?
James:Correct.".
Regularhoursofwork
AllegationsofharassmentbyMrPascoe.
Respondent
Therespondentcalledevidencefromfivewitnesses,thosebeing: MrMcGuire,MrPascoe,MrDanielGardiner,MrSteelandMsMurray.
McGuire
MrMcGuire,along-termemployeeoftherespondent,iscurrentlyemployedastheoperationsmanager,havingheldthatpositionsince1999.
HisroleincludesresponsibilitiesforimplementingandmonitoringcompliancewithpoliciesandproceduresatallofthegroupsHotelpremises.
ThereisaclearpolicyregardingpromotionalitemswhichwasidentifiedintheMcGuire'sCalamvaleHotelConditionsofEmployment "DJM1" which,undertheheadingof "StaffPurchases" states:
"AllstaffpurchasesmustbeaccompaniedbyareceiptandanydiscountgiventostaffmustbeauthorisedbytheManageronduty. Anyemployeefoundtakinganystockfromhotelpremises,includinganygiveawayorpromotionalmaterialwithoutpaymentorreceiptwillbedismissedimmediately.".
Attachedtohiswitnessstatementat "DJM2" wasa "McGuire'sHotelGroupConditionsofEmployment" documentsignedbytheapplicanton3February2004ofwhichthefinalparagraphstated:
"IhavereadandunderstoodtheconditionsofemploymentandacceptalltermsandconditionsofemploymentwiththeMcGuire'sHotelGroup.".
OnThursday10February2005,ameetingofthegroup'smanagerswasheldatwhichMrCrabbewasinattendance,andwheretheissueofpromotionalmaterialwasaddressedtwice.
Thefollowingday,afacsimilewassenttohotelmanagersrequiringthemtoconductstaffmeetingsonorabout17February2005atwhichallissuesdiscussedthepreviousdaybymanagersweretobeaddressed.
Undertheheadingof "Informationforallhotelstaff",thefollowingappearedatpage2:
"Theftisandwillnotbetolerated. Anystaffmemberfoundstealingwillbedismissed. Thisincludestheftofpromotionalproducts,stockormoney. Thegivingawayoffreedrinksisalsoconsideredtobetheft. AnystaffmemberwhoisawareofanotherstaffmemberstealingistoreportittotheHotelmanagerAWAP. ThisisanareathatwillbecloselylookedatbyallmanagementattheHotel.".
MrMcGuiretookissuewiththeclaimofMrCrabbeontheauthorisationofstafftoremovepromotionalmaterialfromHotelpremises.
Atparagraph6ofhisaffidavit,hesaid:
"TothebestofmyknowledgethisclaimbyMrCrabbeisunsubstantiated. Itisnot,norhasiteverbeenMcGuire'sHotelspolicytogiveawaypromotionalproductstostaffasa 'patontheback'.".
FurthertoMrCrabbe'sclaimthathehadthe "licence" togiveemployeespermissiontotakepromotionalmaterialhome,hehadattendedthemanagers' meetinginFebruary2005wherehe(andothermanagers)wereclearlyadvisedthatthetakingofpromotionalstockwouldbeconsideredtheftandwouldresultintermination.
Inconcludinghisevidence,thewitnesschallengedsomekeysectionsoftheevidencegivenintheproceedingsbyMrCrabbe.
Inthecross-examinationprocess,questionswereputinrespectofmattersthatincluded:
Structureofthebusiness
Policiesandprocedures
Witnesshavingapprovedstafftakingpromotionalitemshome
ValueoftheglassestakenbyMsJames
Understandingbystaffontakingpromotionalstock(page70,line55oftranscript):
"Virine:Okay. Doyouthinkthattherewouldhavebeenafeelingamongstthestaffthatitwasokaytotakehomepromotionalstockifamanagerhadtoldthemthatitwasokaytodoso?
McGuire:I'mquitesuretherewouldn'tbe,becausethemanagershavebeentoldtheycan'tandthestaffhavebeentoldtheycan't.
Virine:Butifamanagertoldastaffmemberthatitwasokaytodosomething,doyouthinkit'sreasonableforthestaffmembertothinkthattheyhadbeengivenpermission?
McGuire:NotaftergoingtothatstaffmeetingattheCalamvaleHotel,whichishowwefoundoutfromanotherstaffmemberwhoalsobelievesit'sunreasonableforsomeonetobetakenithome.".
Pascoe
MrPascoe,theManageroftheCalamvaleHotel,havingheldthatpositionsince2000,wasthepersonresponsiblefortheoverallmanagementandoperationofthehotel.
Hisevidencewenttothe "clear" policyregardingpromotionalitemsandoftheprocessesreliedupontoinformstaffthatthetakingofpromotionalmaterialwouldbeconsideredtheft.
MsJameshadattendedameetingon17February2005wherestaffwerebriefedonthatparticularpolicy.
On1July2005,amemberofstaff(MrDanGardiner)raisedwithhimconcernshehadaboutMsJamesactinginasuspiciousmannerandofhisinvestigationinwhichheestablishedthatapproximatelyeightglasseswerewrappedinanewspaperandconcealedinaboxthatwasremovedfromthepremisesbyMsJames.
AfterhisdiscussionwithMrGardiner,hereviewedsecurityfootagewhichhebelievedsubstantiatedtheallegationsputforwardbyMrGardinerandsubsequentlyarrangedforMsJamestomeetwithhimandMsMurrayattheconclusionofhershifton2July2005.
UponthearrivalofMsJames,heinformedherthattherewerea "fewissues" hewishedtodiscusswithher,thefirstbeingthesaleofafourpackofJackDanielscans,andatransactioninvolvingthepurchaseofasoftdrinkforachild.
MsJameshadindicatedthatshehadreceivedfullpaymentforbothtransactionsandhedidnotpursuethatissuefurther.
HethenaskedMsJameswhyshehadtakenanumberofboxesincludingaredboxcontainingthepromotionalglasses.
TheresponsewasthatMrCrabbehadapprovedheractionsacoupleofmonthsearlierandhadnotsoughtpermissionfromanyotherperson.
MsJameswasthenshowntheHotelStaffRulesandadocumentwhereshehadsignedacknowledgement,understandingandacceptanceoftherules.
MrPascoestatedthathehadthenaskedherwhatshethoughtheshoulddointhecircumstancestowhichsheisallegedtohavereplied "dowhatyoulike,sackme" whichshereiteratedafewmomentslater.
FollowingtheexchangeandthefailureofMsJamestodemonstrateremorseoroffertoreturntheitems,heconcludedthattheonlyreasonableoptionwastoterminatetheemployment.
InrespectoftheevidenceofMrCrabbeonthepracticeofrewardingstaffwithpromotionalitems,atparagraph18ofhisaffidavit,hestated:
"MrCrabbeclaimsinparagraph14ofhisstatementthathewastoldbymanagementwhenhecommencedworkattheCalamvaleHotelthathewas '...allowedtogiveemployeespermissiontotakehomeleftoverpromotionalmaterialasa "patontheback" ...'. AtnotimedidItellMrCrabbe,oranyotheremployeeoftheCalamvaleHotel,thathehadpermissiontogiveleftoverpromotionalmaterialtoemployeesasa 'thankyou' or 'patontheback'.".
Inconcludinghisevidence,herefutedallegationsofharassmenttowardsMsJames,butindicatedherbehaviourshowedapatternoffailingtocomplywithreasonable,lawfulinstructionsandadefianceofmanagementdirectives.
Itwasfurtherstatedthat,atthetimetheglassesweretaken,theCinzanopromotionremainedlive.
Cross-examinationincluded:
MeetingofManagersinFebruary2005
Witness'sdefinitionofstealing
WorkingrelationshipwithMrGardiner
Unsignedstatement(allegedlypreparedbyMrGardiner)
Numberofglassestaken(page88,line8oftranscript):
"Virine:Butyoucouldn'tbesurethattherewereeightglasses--?
Pascoe:--Theexactnumber,no.".
TransactioninvolvingMsJamesandacustomerpurchasingcansofJackDaniels.
Gardiner
Thewitness,anAssistantRetailmangerattheCalamvaleHotel,gaveevidenceofhisattendanceatastaffmeetingon17February2005wheretheissueofpromotionalitemswascoveredonthreeoccasions.
Ontheeveningof30June2005,heobservedMsJameswrappingglassesinnewspaperandplacingtheminaredbox.
WhenMsJameswentupstairs,helookedinsidetheboxandfoundapproximatelyeightglassesofwhichmorethanhalfwereCinzanoglassesfromapromotiononatthattime.
TheboxwaslatertakenfromthepremisesbyMsJames.
On1July2005,hespoketoMrPascoeaboutthesituationandrequestedthathisidentityremainanonymousashedidnotwanttobeseenasatroublemaker.
Hisreasonforraisingtheissuewasthatheractionswereagainstcompanypolicyandhethoughtthatwaswrong.
Cross-examinationofthewitnesswasbrief,goingtomattersincluding:
Havingdrinksafterwork
Previousmatterforwhichhewasgivenaverbalwarning
WitnessingMsJameswrappingtheglasses
ReportingtheincidenttoMrPascoe
Takingpromotionalitems(withapproval)(page115,line26oftranscript):
"Virine:Okay. Sowouldyousaythen,basedonwhatyousaid,thattherewasacustominplaceamongstthestaffthatifthepromotionhadendeditwasokaytotakematerialhomeaslongasyou'dbeengivenpermissiontodoso?
Gardiner:LikeIsaid - well,yes. Ifyou'dseenamanager - andthiswasbeforethestaffmeetingwehadinFebruary.".
Steele
MrSteele,theRetailManagerattheCalamvaleHotel,gaveevidenceofhavingbriefedMrCrabbeinMarch2005regardingthecontentofthestaffmeetingheldon17February2005.
OneweekpriortoMsJameshavingheremploymentterminated,hespoketoheraboutanumberofpromotionalitemsinthedrive-throughand,atnostage,gaveherpermissiontoremoveanyitemsfromtheworkplace.
Murray
MsMurray,theFunctionsManagerattheCalamvaleHotel,gaveevidenceofbeingpresentatthemeetinginvolvingMsJamesandMrPascoeon2July2005.
HerevidencesupportedthatgivenbyMrPascoeinrespectofthemeetingandsherecalledMsJamessayingwordstotheeffect "Idon'tcare,sackme".
Submissions
Applicant
MsJulianaVirine,fortheapplicant,gaveabackgroundoftheeventsleadinguptoandincludingtheterminationofMsJames.
Thedismissalwasfortheallegedtheftofpromotionalmaterialandtheunderchargingofacustomer.
Ontheissueofjurisdiction,itwasnotedthatMsJameswascoveredbyaFederalAwardandthatheremploymentwasofacasualnature.
Shehad,inthecourseofheremployment,beenfreeofwarningsforperformancerelatedissues,enjoyedherwork,hadnoconflictwithfellowstaff,buthad,attimes,beenunfairlyscrutinisedbyMrPascoe.
Itwassubmittedthattheincidentrelatingtotheallegedunderchargingdid,infact,formapartofthebasisfortheterminationdespitetheevidenceofMrPascoetothecontrary.
Theallegationrelatingtothetakingoftheglasseswasacknowledgedasthemainreasonrelieduponbytherespondent.
MsJamesacceptsthatsheattendedthestaffmeetingof17February2005wheretheissueofpromotionalitemswerediscussedbuthaslittlerecollectionofwhatwassaid.
MsJames' positionisclearinthatsheheldabeliefthatMrCrabbe,inhisroleasRetailManager,hadgivenherpermissiontotakethepromotionalitems.
Therespondent'srelianceupontheirpolicyonpromotionalitemswas,ineffect,overriddenbycustomandpracticeintheworkplaceandthespecificinstructionofmanagement(MrCrabbe)tothecontrary.
MrCrabbedisputedthetimehewasinformedofthe17February2005meetingsuggestingthatitwasaroundJuneratherthanMarch2005.
TheprocessadoptedbytherespondentindealingwithMsJameswasinadequateasitdidnotallowhertobenotifiedinadvanceofthemeetingwithMrPascoeortheissuestobediscussednortheopportunityofhavinganadvocateorsupportpersonpresent.
MsJameswasnotwarnedthataconsequenceofthemeetingwasthatheremploymentmayhavebeenterminated,norwasshegivensufficienttimetorespondtotheallegations. Further,atthepointoftermination,clearreasonswerenotgivenastowhytheemploymentarrangementhadended.
Therespondenthasapoorrecordrelatingtotheimplementationofpoliciesand,attimes,wasshownthroughtheevidencetobeinconsistentinthisarea.
Theevidenceoftheapplicant'switnesseswassufficienttoestablishthatcustomandpracticeattheHotelhasbeenforstafftobeallowedtotakepromotionalitemswiththeapprovalofamanagerandthisiswhatoccurredinthisinstance.
Thedismissalthereforewasharsh,unjustandunreasonable.
Onthesubjectofremedy,itwassubmittedthatreinstatementorre-employmentwasimpracticableandthatanawardofcompensationwouldbeamoreappropriateoutcome.
Anamountof17weeks' wages(inclusiveoflostwagesandunpaidnotice)basedonMsJames' projectedrosterfortheperiod4to17July2005wassought.
Thewagerateisthatof$13.88perhour,witha25%loadingandappropriatepenaltyrateswhereapplicable.
Anumberofauthoritieswerereliedupon,whichincluded:
French,ScoffellandBolosvCaterairAirportServicesPtyLtd(1998)158QGIG2 - CommissionerBaldwin
MetzrothvPureEzyPtyLtd(2003)173QGIG977 - DeputyPresidentSwan
MarshallvDavidJonesLimited(1997)42AIRL9 - ChiefCommissionerHall(ashewasthen)
Bi-LoPtyLtdvHooper(1992)53IR224 - FullBenchofSouthAustralianIndustrialCommission.
Respondent
MrJedMoore,onbehalfoftherespondent,firstlyindicatedthatthejurisdictiontoheartheapplicationwasnotinquestion.
Theapplicanthadbeenintheemployoftherespondentforapproximately18monthsand,duringheremployment,hadbeenclearlyadvisedonanumberofoccasionsthatthetakingofpromotionalstockwasconsideredtheftandwouldresultininstantdismissal.
Accordingtotherespondent,theterminationwasbothareasonableandjustifiableresponsetoablatantbreachofpolicywhichamountedtostealingasaservant.
TheargumentadvancedbytheapplicantthatshecouldnotrecollectallofwhatwasdiscussedattheFebruary2005staffmeetingissomewhatdiminishedbyheradmissionthatshehadreceiveddocumentationfromtheemployerclearlyadvisingthatthetakingofpromotionalmaterialwasconsideredtheftandwouldresultintermination.
TheevidenceofboththeapplicantandMrCrabbeinrespectofthepermissiontotakethepromotionalstock,intheviewoftherespondent,wasrevealedasdefectiveundercross-examination.
EvenifMrCrabbehadgiventheapplicantpermissiontotaketheglassesasalleged,bothheandtheapplicantwerewellinformedthataclearbreachoftherespondent'spolicieswasoccurringasaconsequenceofthatapproval.
DespitetheclaimbyMrCrabbethatitwascommonpracticetoallowstafftotakepromotionalmaterial,nospecificexampleswereadvanced.
TheevidenceofMrMcGuireastowhentheissueoftheEskywasdiscussed,oughttobepreferredbytheCommissionoverthatofMrCrabbe.
Intheweekpriortotheapplicant'stermination,MrSteelehadinformedherthatanyapproval(followingthe17February2005meeting)totakepromotionalmaterialwouldhavetoberaisedatahigherlevelthansomeoneinhisposition.
Theapplicant,inremovingtheboxcontainingtheglasses,hadbreachedtherespondent'spolicyandwasavalidreasonforterminatingheremployment.
Inaccordancewiths.77oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1999(theAct),theapplicantwasclearlynotifiedofthereasonforhertermination.
Ontheissueofprocess,theapplicantwasgiventheopportunitytorespondtotheallegationsregardinghermisconduct.
Therespondenthadnotenteredthemeetingwiththeintentionofterminatingtheapplicant,butwasleftwithnoreasonablealternativewhentheapplicantmadenooffertoreturntheglassesandsaidwordstotheeffect "dowhatyoulike,sackme".
IftheCommissionwastoacceptthatMrCrabbegavetheapplicantvalidpermissiontotakethetwoCinzanoglasses,suchapprovalwouldnotcovertheglassestakeninadditiontothetwosubjecttotheapproval.
Ontheissueofterminationwithoutnotice,atpage175,line17oftranscript,MrMoorestated:
"Inrelationtotheapplicant'sclaimthatshewasterminatedwithoutnoticeorthatsomenoticeshouldbepayablewedrawtotheCommission'sattentionclause17.15sub-paragraph(e)oftheHospitalIndustryAccommodationHotelsResortsandGamingAward1998. Thisclausespecificallyprovidesthatcasualemployee,ofwhichtheapplicanthasclearlyadmittedthatshewasone,areexemptfromthenoticeprovisions.".
Ontheissueofremedy,theapplicantfailedtoprovidesubmissionsonwhateffortshadbeenmadetomitigateherloss.
Finally,itwassubmittedthattheapplicationwaswithoutmeritandshouldbedismissed.
Conclusion
TheCommission,indecidingapplicationsofthisnatureisrequiredtoconsidertheprovisionsofs.77oftheAct:
"77Matterstobeconsideredindecidinganapplication
Indecidingwhetheradismissalwasharsh,unjustorunreasonable,thecommissionmustconsider-
(a)whethertheemployeewasnotifiedofthereasonfordismissal;and
(b)whetherthedismissalrelatedto -
(i)theoperationalrequirementsoftheemployer'sundertaking,establishmentorservice;or
(ii)theemployee'sconduct,capacityorperformance;and
(c)ifthedismissalrelatestotheemployee'sconduct,capacityorperformance -
(i)whethertheemployeehadbeenwarnedabouttheconduct,capacityorperformance;or
(ii)whethertheemployeewasgivenanopportunitytorespondtotheallegationabouttheconduct,capacityorperformance;and
(d)anyothermattersthecommissionconsidersrelevant.".
Theapplicant,inthecourseoftheproceedings,madeaclaimthattherespondenthadfailedtoprovidereasonsforthedismissalandthattheapplicanthadnotbeengivenareasonableopportunitytorespondtotheallegationsinrespectofherconduct.
Additionally,theapplicantarguedthatthetwoallegations,beingtheunderchargingforasaleandthetakingofpromotionalitems,hadnotmetthestandardofproofasrequiredundertheAct.
Therespondent,inevidencebeforetheCommission,statedthatthesolereasonforthedismissalwasthebreachofpolicybytheapplicantinremovingpromotionalitems,propertyoftheemployerfromtheworkplace,whichamounted,inessence,totheft.
TheCommissionacceptsthepositionadvancedbytherespondentthattheissuerelatingtotheallegedunderchargingofacustomerinrelationtothepurchaseofafourpackofJackDaniels,whilstraisedwiththeapplicant,wasnotrelieduponasareasonfortheendingoftheemploymentrelationship.
Inrespectoftheallegationoftheft,theCommissionheardevidencefrombothMrCrabbeandMsJamesthatpermissionhadbeengiven(byMrCrabbe)forhertotaketwoglassesleftoverfromtheCinzanopromotion,ifinfacttherewereanysuchglassesleftattheendofthepromotion.
TheapprovalhadbeengivenbyMrCrabbeinthefaceofadecisionbytherespondenttonotifyallmanagementandstaffthattheremovalofanyitemsofapromotionalnaturewouldbringwithitapenaltyofinstantdismissal.
ThereisnoquestioninthemindoftheCommissionthatbothMrCrabbeandMsJameswereawareoftherespondent's "hardline" approachtothisissue,manymonthspriorto30June2005(whentheglassesweretaken)andhadblatantlychosentoignorethedirective.
Whetherthedirectivewasfairorotherwise,thereisnoquestionthattherespondenthadtherighttoexercisetheirmanagementprerogativeinthismatterand,oncedecidingonacourse,tookappropriatestepstoinformallemployeesofthedecision.
TheevidencerelatingtothearrangementbetweenMrCrabbeandMsJameswasnotconvincing,tosaytheleast,buteveniftheCommissionwastoaccepttheirversionofevents,atbestMsJameswasofferedtwoglasses.
Incross-examination,MsJamesadmittedtotakingfourCinzanoglasses,doublewhathadbeenoriginallyapprovedbyMrCrabbe.
TheargumentoftheapplicantthatMrCrabbe'spermissionamountedtoalawfulinstructionis,inthecircumstances,difficulttosustainwhenitwouldhavebeenapparenttoeachofthepartiesthattherespondent'spolicywasbeingdeliberatelybreached.
ThemannerinwhichMsJamesremovedtheglasseswas,initself,lessthanopen,whichbeggarsonetoconcludethatsheknewheractionsifputunderscrutinymaycausehersomeproblems.
Itwouldbeunreasonabletofindthattheconclusionsoftherespondentthattheapplicanthadremovedtheglassescontrarytotheknownpolicyofthebusinesswereanythingbutcorrect.
Additionally,toremovetheglasses,aswasdonebyMsJames,andtobefoundout,leftnodoubtinmymindastowhatonemightexpectasapenalty.
Ontheissueofprocess,itisevidenttotheCommissionthattheapplicant,priortoherattendanceatthemeetingwithMrPascoe,wasgivennoindicationastowhatwouldbesubjecttodiscussionatthemeetingandthatattheendofthemeetingshemayfacedismissal.
MrPascoegaveevidencethathehadnotpre-determinedthatMsJameswouldbedismissed,howeverbasedontheevidenceandmaterialbeforetheCommission,ifMsJamesadmittedtotakingtheglasses(whichshedid),theterminationseemedtobethemandatoryoutcometoexpect.
ThefailuretoadviseMsJamesoftheseriousnessoftheallegationstobelevelledagainstherwouldhavebeenthemostlogicalreasonforherattendingthemeetingwithoutanadvocateorsomeotherformofsupport.
MsJames,amemberoftheUnion,couldwellhavehadaccesstoanadvocatewhomostsurelywouldhaveadvisedheragainstmakingthecommenttoMrPascoe "dowhatyoulike,sackme" which,forallintentsandpurposes,wasaninvitationtoMrPascoewhichwassubsequentlytakenup.
Thefailureoftherespondenttofollowanacceptableprocessensuringnaturaljusticetotheapplicant,intheviewoftheCommission,wasanunreasonableact.
TheCommissionhastraditionallyplacedsignificantemphasisonprocess.
However,therehasbeen,ofcourse,otherinstanceswheretheprocesshasbeenflawedbuttheterminationitselfwasjustifiedonthemeritsofthedecision.
InthematterofAdelizaZuluetaANDStaffServicesTrainingandServicesPtyLtdtradingasJimmy'sontheMall(B695of2004),DeputyPresidentBloomfieldstatedfirstly:
"WhilsttheRespondenthasclearlyfailedtofollowtheproceduralstepsrequiredbys.77oftheActineffectingtheApplicant'sterminationthereis,nonetheless,significantmeritassociatedwithitsdecision.".
andfurtheroninthedecision:
"However,thelegislation,andprecedent,suggeststheRespondenthad,atleast,theobligationtoattempttohelptheApplicantovercomeherdeficienciesbeforeiteffectedhertermination.
Inmyconsideredview,iftheRespondenthadapproachedthismatterintheappropriateway(asrecordedabove)theApplicant'semploymentwouldcertainlyhavecometoanendwithinaperiodof2months.Havingalreadybeenpaid2weeks' wagesinlieuofnoticeuponhertermination,theApplicantshouldbeawardedanamountof6weeks' compensationforherunfairdismissal.InmakingthatdecisionIformallyrecordthatreinstatementisimpracticable.".
Finding
TheCommission,havingconsideredtheevidence,materialandsubmissionsbeforetheproceedings,findsthattheterminationoftheapplicantwas,inthecircumstances,warranted,withtheapplicantandfellowemployeeshavingbeenfullyappraised(inapropermanner)ofwhatoutcomewouldbefallemployeesremovingpromotionalandotherstock,thepropertyoftherespondent.
WhilstacceptingthepositionoftherespondentonthedismissalI,ontheotherhand,findthattheapplicantwasnotgivenareasonableopportunitytorespondtotheallegationspriortothedismissal.
Iftheproperprocesshadbeenfollowed,theemploymentrelationshipwould,mostcertainly,haveendedshortlythereafterand,onthatbasis,Iaminclinedtomakeaminimalawardofcompensationtothetuneof$520.50gross,withtheappropriatedeductionofincometaxinaccordancewithAustralianTaxationOfficeLegislation.
Themoniesaretobepaidwithin22daysofthereleaseofthisdecision.
Iorderaccordingly.
J.M.THOMPSON,Commissioner.HearingDetails:
20051and2December
Released: 12January2006 / Appearances:
MsJ.Virine,ofLiquorHospitalityandMiscellaneousUnion,QueenslandBranch,UnionofEmployees, Applicant.
MrJ.Moore,ofQueenslandHotelsAssociation,UnionofEmployers,fortheRespondent.
GovernmentPrinter,Queensland
TheStateofQueensland2006.