 |
|
 |
| ||
 |
|
 |
Excerpt from this article first published in Human Resources Magazine, Issue 135 - 21 August 2007
Mr Woodward Brown, a long serving Long Haul Flight Attendant was terminated by Qantas after a routine security check discovered 16 individual chocolates, 3 biscuits, 1 sachet of sugar, 1 coffee stirrer and 2 Qantas pens (all the property of Qantas) in Mr Brown’s pockets and checked in luggage. He was stood down pending an investigation.
Mr Woodward Brown was terminated for serious misconduct because he breached the Qantas Standards of Conduct policy and Standards of Personal Behaviour. Qantas concluded Mr Woodward Brown was guilty of theft of Qantas property. Qantas maintained that as a Cabin Services Supervisor Mr Woodward Brown was expected to set an example for the employees under his supervision.
Mr Woodward Brown contended that he had placed the items in his pockets to provide to passengers and that he had forgotten they were there when he left the aircraft. He did not steal the items. He was aware that he was not permitted to remove Qantas property from the aircraft unless he paid for it or was given permission.
In deciding the issue, Deputy President Drake of the AIRC noted that the standard of proof that must be reached by Qantas was higher because of the serious nature of the allegation, gross misconduct, and the effect of the terminatio on Mr Woodward Brown. DP Drake accepted the evidence of Mr Woodward Brown that he forgot the items were in his possession. He did not intend to steal from Qantas. He had however breached Qantas policies.
In deciding that the termination was harsh unjust or unreasonable, DP Drake concluded that the breach of policy was not sufficient to justify Mr Woodward Brown’s termination. The breach could have been handled in another way. None of the cabin crew who were witnesses in the case considered that removal of the chocolates and biscuits that were going to be thrown out anyway was significant.
DP Drake also found that the Service Standard Policy, whereby food items were to be always served on a tray, could not be applied in all cases. Several passengers requesting service at the same time would make the policy unworkable. It was logical to conclude that in those situations, flight attendants would put chocolates and biscuits in their apron pockets to give to passengers.
She said “Had I found that Mr Woodward Brown either stole or intended to steal the chocolates or biscuits, termination of employment would certainly have been an appropriate remedy for consideration. In most cases the value of the items removed would be irrelevant.”
As he had not intended to steal the items, the termination of Mr Woodward Brown was disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct.
In determining that Mr Woodward Brown’s termination was harsh, DP Drake took into account his 32 years of unblemished service, his age, and the personal, social and financial consequences of termination of his employment. DP Drake ordered Mr Woodward Brown’s reinstatement.
Employment policies must be capable of being followed, they must be reasonable, and must be consistently applied if they are to be relied on to justify termination of an employee.
As this case illustrates, if an employer accuses an employee of gross misconduct in the form of theft, the employer bears a heavy onus to establish that the misconduct as alleged actually occurred. DP Drake was critical of the decision maker who concluded that Mr Woodward Brown could not be trusted to not re-offend without actually putting that conclusion to him.
Gordon Jervis
Senior Associate
