Liquorhospitalityandmiscellaneousunion,Queenslandbranch,Unionofemployees(Forjeanettejames)

1

[ExtractfromQueenslandGovernmentIndustrialGazette,

dated27January2006,Vol.181,No.4,page107-115]

QUEENSLANDINDUSTRIALRELATIONSCOMMISSION

IndustrialRelationsAct1999 - s.74 - applicationforreinstatement

LiquorHospitalityandMiscellaneousUnion,QueenslandBranch,UnionofEmployees(forJeanetteJames)

ANDCal-MacPtyLtdt/aCalamvaleHotel(B/2005/1084)

Applicationforreinstatement - 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.

GovernmentPrinter,Queensland

TheStateofQueensland2006.