|
|
Stolen Snickers Snacker Sacked |
A Coles Group distribution centre worker was terminated after eating a stolen Snickers bar while on the job. The worker sued for unfair dismissal. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("AIRC") dismissed the application. |
Known theft |
The employee worked at the Coles Group Smeaton Grange distribution centre in the Kmart section. |
The distribution centre had been suffering significant losses from known theft. In the financial year ending 2007, the known theft for grocery products (not including Kmart stock) at the distribution centre averaged between $8,000 and $10,000 per month, and in some months up to $20,000 in known theft was reported. |
Coles Group management introduced new measures to combat known theft including:
- a check seal policy under which all grocery or food items belonging to an employee must have a check seal on them to indentify them from items belonging to Coles Group;
- a food and drink policy under which employees must not have any food or drink on the distribution centre floor other than bottled water; and
- taking disciplinary action whenever theft of breaches of policy were identified.
|
| Known theft of grocery products decreased in the financial year ending 2008 to approximately $50,000 from approximately $110,000 for the financial year ending 2007. Coles Group attributed this decrease to the new measures. |
The employee had signed notices accepting Coles Group's terms and conditions of employment, including a commitment to be open, honest and trustworthy. The employee was also made well aware of the Coles check seal and food and drink policies. |
The incident
|
On 31 May 2008, the employee and a colleague were loading a pallet in a container in the Kmart section when another colleague driving a pallet jack from the grocery section threw them each a Snickers bar which had been taken from a case that had ripped open. The employee immediately ate the chocolate bar. |
Following the incident all three men involved were interviewed by management and asked to explain their actions. They were then suspended from work on full pay. Ten days later, following two further interviews during which the employee gave inconsistent accounts of the events, management concluded that the employee had breached Coles Groups' policies and could no longer be trusted, and he was terminated. |
The employee applied to the AIRC seeking relief under section 643(1) of the Workplace Relations Act on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. |
Reasons |
The AIRC provided the following reasons for its decision to dismiss the application:
- Coles Group's policies for the protection of its assets were reasonable, given the nature of its business and of the distribution centre. The check seal policy and the food and drink policy were known to the employee and Coles Group reiterated its policies to them.
- The employee had a basic duty of fidelity and good faith to his employer. The employee did not meet that obligation. The employee's conduct in eating the Snickers bar in circumstances where he would reasonable expect it to be stolen, and not being open and honest during the investigation, destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence. This was a valid reason for termination.
|
What you should do |
In order to avoid successful claims for unfair dismissals employers should mimic the procedures followed by Coles Group and ensure that:
- " Employees are made aware of all workplace policies, including the obligation to be open and honest with the employer. Employees should be reminded of these obligations and should sign an acknowledgement to that effect.
- " When there is a valid reason for termination, the employee should be made aware of the reason and given an opportunity to respond to the reasons.
|
Contact Peter McNamara or Jang Luu for advice about how to manage the risk of unfair dismissal claims. |
Case: Tony Petrosillo v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd [2009] AIRC 3 |
