A Melbourne cleaner was sacked from the great Australian airline yesterday over the alleged theft of 2 biscuits from an aircraft after a snap bag raid at the exit gate of Melbourne terminal. The staff member was asked by security guards about the origin of the 2 Oreo delights and readily agreed that they had come from a Qantas aircraft. When asked how they had found there way into his bag he made it clear that he was unsure and his bag was sitting for the length of the shift in an open area accessible by many fellow cleaners and supervisors. They decided to sack him anyway. The union representing him will be challenging the dismissal in the AIRC and a collection is underway to help the father of 3 support his family until the matter is resolved. The decision by management opens a few questions that I’d like answered.
Can a manager or management stooge plant Qantas property in another employee’s bag in order to get them sacked?
Do Qantas presume their staff guilty and stop paying their wages until their innocence is proven?
Have Qantas HR moved to Bali and now base there standards on those set by the local government?
Two other cleaners were questioned on the same day over Qantas property found in their bags and accepted the offer by the airline to resign on the spot. In each case the goods were worth less than $5 and the staff openly admitted that the goods belonged to Qantas but considered the theft trivial and that honesty would be the best policy. All staff members at Melbourne airport are being advised to say nothing, admit no guilt and if asked to open bags on departure demand a union rep be present during the searches.

At what monetary value does theft go from trivial to Major???

If the object is not yours and you take it, it is theft, no matter the monetary value.

Prospector

It’s like being pregnant – either you are or you are not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. Theft is theft and, in this case, it is larceny as a servant (stealing from your employer) which the courts regard as a more serious form of theft as you, as a trusted employee, have betrayed that trust by stealing from your boss.

I’ll admit that being sacked for stealing two biscuits seems a bit rich. It sounds like the airline is reverting to our heritage where you could be transported to the colonies for stealing a loaf of bread.

Is there are milder form of “punishment” that they could have imposed on the employee? As I don’t work in the industry, I don’t know for sure. I suspect that there is probably not, as there are not many organisations have any form of disciplinary provisions incorporated in their Certified Agreement, so they must revert to the law.

..if it were isolated, if it never, ever happened, if Qantas, like every other major airline in the world didn't have to spend millions every year investigating and preventing it from happening, then, yes, being fired for stealing 2 biscuits is wrong.

But the truth is, and I am sure Qantas could demonstrate it, that staff theft of company property is a major issue that affects the company in many ways, from the bottom line (which affects your pay) through to the morale of staff who don't steal but know others that do and are compromised by the overwhelming backlash that they would receive from the many perpetrators and their union if they were to try to stop it.

I flew international the other day and watched as the flight attendants spent the entire flight showering a recently married couple who were both flight attendants for the same airline with the fodder from first class, and on arrival gave them a box with at least a half a dozen bottles of wine and other goodies inside.

Fact - all the airlines are desperately seeking ways to cut costs. The reason they go after your salaries is because it is overwhelmingly difficult to resolve some inefficiencies, which includes theft. In an airline as large as QF it would be like plugging the proverbial dike. I know for a fact that during my short tenure at Ansett we had conservatively estimated that theft and fraud was costing us $A30m a year. Imagine if that money had been going to the bottom line? I also remember vividly the day that a husband and wife couple at MEL airport were caught with their fingers in the till and had been at it for years. They admitted what they had done and defiantly boasted that they had been doing it for years. Where was the union? Right beside them trying to get them their jobs back. Reason? They blamed Ansett for creating an environment where it could happen and that poor working class employees could be tempted. And then came the sob stories about being unemployed, unemployable and with 3 children to raise. The fact is they made their choice, they knew the risks and still they did it.

Many of you would remember a time maybe 3 decades ago when this wasn't an issue. Now you spend your days pointing at the evil of management and their heavy handed attitudes. QF, just like Ansett, is not a cash-cow. The money can dry up. If that day ever comes (and I pray that it doesn't) will you, like many Ansett employees, deny your involvement in its downfall through sheer greed, inefficiency or theft? You should all circle the wagons around your beloved airline and realise that you can contribute to its and your success simply with a change of attitude. And remember, the better you are the more you highlight the incompetence of any half-baked managers that sit above you. Management can only hide when staff problems are a distraction.

So you are to finish work at 5.00pm and you work to 5.02pm, I bet Qantas don't pay you for the 2 minutes. Is that theft by Qantas.
I wouldn't want to be paid. I think the whole company has to work together but sometimes you wonder if the company wants that. Love to look at a company credit card statement from the top floor boys and girls.

You are all right when you say that theft is wrong and should not be condoned.

However, there are a number of penalties that can be applied to any crime or do you believe that the death penalty or whatever the maximum penalty is should be enacted to any wrongdoing.

Years ago a major soft drink company as well as a well known chocolate manufacturer decided that petty theft was getting out of hand .Both companies put free samples of their products around the factories. Within a short time there was basically no theft as people were literally sick of chocolate and soft drink. There are always alternatives to the maximum penalty if you wish.

To those people who decided to sack the cleaner or those who condone the sacking, I wonder if you have ever made a personal phone call from an office phone or taken a pen or writing pad home. In fact it would be a reasonably safe bet that there is not one person that has not. Theft is theft and you cannot isolate any group from that concept or punishment.

If you want to stop theft then make a specific deterrent that would stop them without taking the draconian move of sacking someone and removing their ability to make a living. Take away their staff travel for 3 years or the company contributions to their super. You can make the deterrent so ridiculous that only a complete fool would take anything and if someone does commit an act of theft then I doubt anyone else would after that example was made.

Are we losing our humanity or are we all just numbers to utilized and discarded.

About time too. Sick of the passing parade of baggage handlers, honey cart drivers etc who head straight to the galley on turn around to get a free feed.

It is theft-no more, no less.

So any food that is going to be thrown out anyway is stealing!!!!!

I'm not sure where you work but you have never made a personal call from an office phone????

Whats the old saying about people in glass houses?

Hmmm...

How about a stern warning ..along the lines of "the next time you step out of line it will be your last".

Thats sounds a bit fairer to me.

Then again there are 3 sides to the story and we've only been privvy to one.

I would bet that 'IF' this is the first time the worker has faced disciplinary action, the case will be thrown out and the worker reinstated because the disciplinary action was in all the circumstances harsh and unreasonable.

However, 'IF' the worker has had prior disciplinary action against them for stealing and had been warned before that he would face dismissal if he did it again, then dismissal may be justified.

Dismissal should be the last resort, not the first.

This may be perfectly justifiable action in the circumstances, or, a case of over enthusiastic incompetent management.

We will have to wait until we hear the facts.

About time too. Sick of the passing parade of baggage handlers, honey cart drivers etc who head straight to the galley on turn around to get a free feed.
It is theft-no more, no less.

If ground staff were supplied breakfast/lunch/dinner like Tech & Cabin crews (per sector mind you) then maybe they wouldn't be first in line for the left overs.

Ever noticed the Engineers dive on board to collect the used newspapers, is this theft also?:confused:

Have to agree that theft is theft and needs to be punished but the punishment needs to fit the crime. That though is not the key issue. The man has been assumed guilty and now he can't feed his family. His bag was left in an open area (as all are) and anyone could have placed the biscuits in there. If the airline can get away with this the door is open to set up any outspoken opponent of the system by simply planting Qf property on them. Surely he needs to be proven guilty before his livelyhood is removed and on the current evidence no court in this land would convict him of theft.


I am an engineer in Adl and wonder if I take a few screws out to replace a component and leave an extra in my pocket, can I lose my job if it gets found on the way out? Ever gone home with a Qantas pen? How far are they going to take this?

They get paid naff-all, the food is only going to be thrown out anyway, let 'em eat what ever they like.

qfcainer

If you want a technical reply … …
The newspaper is owned by the airline when they purchase it.
They give it to a passenger, therefore ownership passes to the pax.
The pax chucks it in the bin when finished and, believe it or not, ownership then passes to the owner or organisation authorised to empty the bin.

It never ceases to amaze me how many would be executioners there are posting here....

As I said before the first one here that has never stolen anything in their life can throw the first stone...

Whether that is a phone call , a pen or note pad or a biscuit that was going to be thrown out or whatever...

The newspaper is owned by the airline when they purchase it.
They give it to a passenger, therefore ownership passes to the pax.
The pax chucks it in the bin when finished and, believe it or not, ownership then passes to the owner or organisation authorised to empty the bin.

Phew, I can rest safe in the knowledge that when I take the chocolate bar off the aeroplane that they gave to me in the lunch box on the aeroplane that they can't get stuck into me. What if it is 20 choccie bars because I've been flogging up and down the domestic network for five days? :E

What if the skipper gives me his as well! :eek: :}

Plenty of give & take in the past. If QF Mgmnt decide to throw that out, then they will be drawing a line in the sand. Although, in todays climate & the current attitude of QF Mgmnt, this is probably a provocation to the Union. "Take us on, we're ready." is what they are probably thinking.

If I were an unfortunate employee of QF, I'd be keeping very quiet & making sure my nose was clean!

As for this chap, if he was the first ever to take a biscuit, then I'd be suprised. Perhaps you should all send an e-mail to your supervisors asking if it's okay to "borrow" some water, cups, teabags/coffee, sugar, milk & spoons? Make sure that you finish by saying that you will duly deposit the by-products wherever management would like.:hmm:

Did the Oreo have an expiry date on the package?







(I'm resue 1's sister, so it's not my brother posting this it's his sister ) tee hee hee. he shouldn't have left the computer on...

Heh heh. Keg, I don't know about crew choccy bars, but I can positively, 100% guarantee that I will never be caught 'stealing' a leftover crew meal. Or if I was, I would expect to be bundled off for a psychiatric assessment!:)

That aside, a sacking for the above-mentioned offence, whether proven or not, is a bit rich. The company clearly doesn't believe in the punishment fitting the crime.

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

Sounds like we have a few angels on PPRUNE!!!!!!!!!!

The simple fact is that our "illustrious" management have picked on the weakest employee group they could and come down hard. It is a simple case of bullying and they've done it simply because they know they can get away with it.

Ask one of our former directers Trevor Kennedy about st***ing. I do believe there was a well publicised ASIC investigation in elaborate Swiss banking accounts that involved Offset Alpine and alleged insurance fraud. I bet our poor cleaner can't top that!!!

I don't condone stealing a packet of biscuits or anything else but I despise bullying, especially by managers.

Should have eaten the said evidence immediately.

This is not new in the Industry.

Many years ago now (probably at least 20 as it was at the old BNE Airport), the same thing happened at Ansett at 4am one morning as night shift were going home.

Several people, mainly cleaners but also one very senior (as in service) LAME were "caught" and all sacked on the spot.

It was pointed out then, that although it is not a crime (unwise but NOT a crime) to take unused meals etc off the aircraft and eat them at work, it IS illegal to take anything at all off the premises, EVEN meals that were to be thrown away.

At the time this was so worrying to everyone as the Company said NOTHING of theirs was to leave the premises.

Most LAMEs had spares in their toolboxes, like split pins, screws and nuts etc for when you went relieving or on breakdowns. However it was pointed out after this incident that even this WAS technically illegal IF you took your toolbox home (with these things in it) on your days off. :eek:

It was also pointed out, in case some of you are wondering, that even a meal supplied to Crew on a flight MUST be consumed on the Airport or Aircraft OR discarded, you can NOT legally take your Crew meal home.

Perhaps he got sick of eating the peanuts he is paid

OMG Kelly Slater that is absolutely HILARIOUS!!!

I am still wondering in which class you have to travel to get Oreo's???

Or maybe they aren't available because they've all been stolen?

SG
:E

the Oreos are in the snack on Q middle of the flight refreshment given out to Y/C pax along with a small botttle of water and a piece of fruit and such.As you get off the aircraft there are a few here and there on the floor or seats that some pax did not want so are thrown out.They are not loaded as dry stores and therefore are not able to be used on the next flight.

They are either going to end up in some tip or incinerator or someones stomach as they clean the aircraft.

This is not an item that can be re-used by the company as something like tea bags or coffee or other dry stores.

considering the nature of the offence , a dismissal is like beheading someone for jay walking

The company does this every few years just to keep up morale...for the management that is!!!!

Rumour has it that the contents of said, "snack on Q" bag [otherwise known as, "the Gilroy"] cost Qantas nothing.

The contents are provided "gratis" to Qantas as the promotional size items inside provide an effective form of advertising for the supplier.

I think that the cleaner got off pretty easily given the current climate at Qantas.

If things here continue to progress in the manner of late stealing a biscuit will soon cost you more than your job............

The bags are affectionately called "the Gilroy" in honour of a since retired longhaul cabin crew line manager.

The bags are, after all, small, transparent and full of shit :ok:

Maybe QF employees who steal biscuits should instead be bundled onto a ship and banished to England as punishment??

So, Margret Jackson and GOD never take ANYTHING, not a paperclip, not a pencil off the premises, and would be sacked if they did....

Yeah, right....

I'm surprised that some people see such an incident in 'black and white', which obviously shows a lack of reasoning maturity- comparable to children in a recent study! Such people probably fully support mandatory sentencing too.
Nearly everyone takes 'souviners' from hotels where they stay or office supplies from where they work, and this is to be expected.
For god's sakes, what are we comming to? a Police state?

for crying out loud, I can only hope none of you are line pilots (Keg excepted), for starters , QF probably FM's the cleaning, thats' facility manages to an-other-third-party-hungry-sad-middle-manager-aspirational-types, which has got nothing at all to do with QF, except they provide a cleaning service and elect to , on a daily basis, as per the terms of the contract signed, clean the big aluminum tubing between stops.

where they get their manpower is none of QF;s concern, as long as they clean de tube! ? Stealing a biccie or two is the concern of the pathethic wannabe nazi middle manager who works for the FM cleaning outfit, where grand-ma's are for sale, and the latest gold watch (as worn by 007) is de rigeure, in fact its is a million miles away from the grange hermitage drawingroom conversations in mosman, more like a lindemans 45 in greenacres.......... :yuk:

if ya ain't connected , ya ai nobody, wonder how this new Individual work agreements will affect us , anybody know what terms the cleaner was on ? is her/his superannuation safe ? :O

GOD was a little while ago in SIngapore demanding a full fare pax be denied first class, so his daughter could travel with him(staff travel I believe). Surely thats worth more than a few oreos.

Blueloo ... it is most unlikely that daughter (or daddy) paid any money for that ticket!! And you know that FOC/OCS Positive space pax (once they are booked) has a higher priority order of loading than a full fare paying passenger.

Many a tech crew has refused to travel if there wasn't a First Class seat available... on services that usually have FCL seats. I've seen full fare paying passengers down graded due to this. I've known airlines to lose huge accounts through this. The "wrong" pax were downgraded.

I've known tech crew refuse to dead head when, "due to operational requirements", the operating aircraft was changed to one that didn't have FCL seats.

I know it was (I think still is in QF) in the T & C of employment but some so and so in OPS forgets time and again to book seats... or tech crew, at times, won't accommodate an unusual situation!

It's all history now... I hope!

I think I've gone off thread... I'm sorry.

Animal, whilst I think GOD on "duty" travel is fine, I think the daughter is maybe a different thing, according to the person who dealt with the situation, it was staff travel ticket for the daughter, and was not a confirmed P class

Tech crew on Duty travel - well thats part of their employment package. Just like other executives for their respective firms have as part of their remuneration a set class of travel, which is a cost to their company, so do QF employees. The difference is that the company pays for it a different way - ie the loss of a revenue seat. As for downgrading the wrong person, well thats generally due to someone who isnt applying the 'internal' rules appropriately (Singapore is a good example - they upgrade Sing Staff ahead of any QF staff, let alone full fare pax).

Please forgive my naivety but am I reading this post correctly that a QF contractor was sacked over having two biscuits in his possession?
My God...Look out when we ask for a white and two...

Certainly sounds unreasonable, sacked for 2 biscuits, so how many do you have to steal to get the sack, 10...20...a box...a truckload?
It's a simple rule, black and white. Yes it's possibly open to abuse, it would be easy to set someone up and sack them etc, but that can happen anytime in a thousand different ways.
On the flip side, though I havn't been pulled up personally, I have heard of crews being caught unprepaired and having to undergo searches at the hotels after check-in on their way to their room, usually following a looong flight. Ridiculous police state they are making.:eek: :\ :ugh: :yuk:
Beware, the security nazis are everywhere.
Engagement is in a Flat Spin......

Mmmmm a lot of holier than thous on this post, get real I do not care whom you are I bet you have used taken (knowingly or otherwise) some minor part, food or paper. Some "workmates" do silly pranks as well and may well cause a situation just like this.

When you think about it ,the company should encourage cleaners,engineers..anyone really to consume items that will only be going to the tip.This way it reduces Qantas’s waste bill….

As I said before the company does this every now and again to raise morale..for the management that is…and to make it look as though management is actually being proactive in their job and earning their pay..:yuk:

About time the theifs amungst us was pulled in line I can't understand that anyone wants to work with petty pilferers and defending them is a waste of time! We lose millions of $$$$ each year because of these decietful and dishonest characters and I don't care if its one oreo or a box of alcahol. If ya steel then suffer the consequences :ok:

At the Rat, if you carry your own bottle of sports-water (eg Gatorade) onto the aeroplane, and get "caught" with it by the wrong Qantas person, you face the sack. Yep, true, it's in the Qantas books. Doesn't matter that such a bottle is not available onboard or if you have a receipt. Their attitude is that you are now capable of commiting theft, ie, capable of stealing company stores (alcohol) so despite not having actually committed any theft they can sack you anyway.......

The same goes for ANY container capable of carrying liquid! That's what the Qantas books say.

The same books say that if you buy "domestic products" in a slip-port, they must be carried empty (!), sealed in hold-luggage and receipt carried. So, for example, if you buy an interesting bottle of sauce at a market overseas, you have to EMPTY the contents down the sink before bringing the empty bottle home. You cannot even bring this home FULL, according to the rules! Is this truly unbelievable stuff, or what?

I don't see the same p...ks that write this.... stuff.... ruling that office staff (which includes themselves, of course) are not permitted to take paper or pens to work, or indeed, take any bag to work that is capable of containing company paper, pens, staplers, etc, etc. Let's not even start on the use of telephones for personal calls, internet for non-company purposes, and so on.

Engagement in a flat-spin? Hardly - I would have called it an ever-tightening spiral dive... :yuk:

p.s. And Mr Qantas, it just has to be said: you are either a complete wind-up artist or a complete p...k. If you truly are in a management role then you're part of the rot that's going to contribute to the destruction of this once-proud airline within the next 10-15 years.

Mr. Qantas, might I suggest that instead of wanting to play the comical character Judge Dredd and be judge, jury and executioner you might try to improve on your grammar and spelling.

Forget the Oreo's ,imagine the millions we could save on proof readers if people could learn to spell and put a sentence together...

I might also ask if you have in your entire life ever committed any act of theft at all…phone calls. Anything at all……think about it….

As a few have mentioned the Oreo's were to be taken to the tip ,so how is taking them theft?????

There is no way Mr. Qantas could be part of Qantas management, not even they could be so poor at posting(then again mmmm)….maybe he is an inmate at some correctional facility and at some stage has access to the internet at our expense…..if that is the case he has a sense of humor and is indeed a windup artist

Yep, Lowerlobe, I reckon you're spot on with all of that.....

Did you post that from home or at work Mr QF?? If from work...well...you better watch your back! That's company electricity you're stealing.:hmm:

I think Mr QANTAS is management. I have seen many memos written by a manager themselves and not their secretary. You can tell when they wrote it. The spelling and grammer is atrocious and they can not seem to find the document with the QF letterhead on it. Every time I have seen a memo written by one of these fools the respect of the staff goes down another notch because of the poor grammer and spelling. Eg If he/she can't put a sentence together, how can they run this section. End of rant.

Yeah Ron & Edna, I seem to remember a Captain saying something to the effect that if they caught him with a full unopened bottle of his favourite hot sauce bought from overseas and wanted to make him empty it, he would empty it over the security managers desk. Probably wouldn't make any difference to the policy, but would be good for a laugh. Not sure what they'd do in response - probably take his 60th birthday off him or something.

I would dearly love to see the company try to enforce it against someone willing to take them on. The policies they can make up and actually enforce are limited (though QF tends not to realise this) by normal rules of law and common sense.

But once again we get back to the same point - 2 Oreos? Sacking? Hmmmm. Are those who say 'theft is theft' seriously implying that pilfering 2 leftover Oreos is the same as the great train robbery? Get real.

Here is an example of how far we have got in dealing with theft as a servant on this side of the ditch

"The cameras filmed a worker removing a box from under a bench and taking it outside to an area where employees' cars were parked. Four days later Mr Lawless was seen putting a box in the same place.

The new box was searched and found to contain soap, a product manufactured by Comvita. Later, the other employee was seen to collect the box and take it to his car. That employee admitted removing company property and resigned.

Comvita management showed Mr Lawless the video and asked him to explain what he was doing. Mr Lawless refused on the advice of his union representative. At a subsequent meeting Mr Lawless was given a letter of dismissal.

Mr Lawless then complained to the Employment Relations Authority which upheld his dismissal. But in overturning the authority's decision, Employment Court chief judge Graeme Colgan said Comvita had failed to follow the proper process.

"Comvita was obliged to tell Mr Lawless of the allegations – including suspicions of particular misconduct – rather than simply invite him to comment on his own behaviour illustrated in video clips."

Judge Colgan awarded Mr Lawless $12,000 for loss of earnings and $7000 compensation for non-economic losses and the distress he suffered

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3555597a11,00.html

If you play your cards right would appear to be more lucrative than just going to work.

Prospector

As yet we only have the "rumour" that the reason for the dismissal was for the two biscuits. We don't know the history, we don't know whether there was more to it and we certainly don't know what the employers policies are in relation to staff theft.

Even if the biscuits were going to the tip they were still the employers property. There is plenty of case law that justifies termination based on those facts alone.

I will agree that if this was the cleaners first breach and if there were only the two biscuits then he/she may well succeed in their unfair dismissal claim. But I would not be surprised to find that there is much more to it than that.

You have got to be kidding…

“Even if the biscuits were going to the tip there is case law that justifies termination based on those facts alone”

The Oreo's were waste...he is doing the company a favour by reducing the amount sent to the tip,it was of no commercial or intrinsic value...

What would you do to the guy if he actually did something of a serious nature such as pinching a vacuum cleaner or some other major asset…..execute him…

A few years ago someone in the security department decided to have a bust in the customs hall which turned into a complete farce and one guy tried to take a uniform shirt away from one of the crew because it had a qantas label on it...

Where are we going with these draconian or some would say orwellian decisions....we are losing sight of the bigger picture...even if this is the latest in a series of thefts for this guy maybe we have to look at other measures but to sack someone for taking a free give away is a bit over the top.,

As I have said before "is there anyone here who thinks this dismissal is fair who has not committed an act of theft petty or otherwise at any time in their life" but is now Holier than thou

The sacking appears to be in the extreme for the "crime" committed. On the other hand how about the QF staff who hold shares in the company... do they agree?

Here's something I've been applying more in my life of late, it helps remove the guilty conscience aspect ...

Rule 1. If you didn't pay for it, it's NOT YOURS.

And I mean, paid for it from your actual money, your BANK ACCOUNT, not "I've done x hours unpaid overtime so the company owes me xx dollars so I can justify taking this pen home". Did the staff member pay for the biscuits? No? Then the biscuits did not belong to him or her. Getting fired for a couple of biscuits seems very strange, but if they're taking a hardline approach then they're going to get some attention with this! It seems strange especially seeing as the person doing the inspection probably wrote the charges out using a company-supplied pen, which they probably put back in their pocket which then went home,

Rule 2. If something is given to you, but it wasn't theirs to give, it's NOT YOURS.

If it wasn't theirs to give, or they weren't authorised to give it to you (for example, a promotional person is authorised to give company polo shirts to non-clients, they may not be authorised to distribute them to staff!), then accepting it from them = receiving stolen property!

And you can't take the "ask me no questions I'll tell you no lies" approach with the second one - if you can't beyond a shadow of a doubt establish that "yes, it was theirs to give", then you may very well lose your job or worse go to prison for accepting whatever the item is. Think about it.

Where I work there's a line in the Employee Handbook that states: The Organisation's resources may be used for personal purposes as long as the use is not excessive.

Now this has led to all sorts of abuses by people unable to determine for themselves what is excessive and what isn't. I'm sitting at work reading PPRuNe and typing this response, something I do regularly when there isn't anything else demanding my time, and I have no outstanding job requests. I don't consider it excessive, and my manager agrees with me, however there are others who would consider just browsing the internet to check your bank balance grounds for dismissal. I consider that my manager is authorised to determine what is acceptable use of my time while I'm not actively carrying out tasks.

If you're talking about material things though, refer to my handy Rules above and you'll never find yourself in trouble ... even if it is "just two biscuits". :ok:

How do your rules apply in this case wishtobflying?
You finish work and there is a random bag search. Two oreos are found in your bag that could have been placed in it by one of the 100 staff working the area on that day. It may have been a manager who didn't like you because you voted no for the last EBA.
They sack you anyway and stop paying you.
"If you're talking about material things though, refer to my handy Rules above and you'll never find yourself in trouble ... even if it is "just two biscuits". "
The word never seems to be misplaced here. If we stick to your rules it should be substituted worth the words
"If you're talking about material things though, refer to my handy Rules above and you may find yourself in trouble ... even if it is "just two biscuits".

My comments were more aimed at the people above who seem to feel it's okay to take stuff like that. Just because it's getting thrown out doesn't mean it's okay to take, even if someone gave it to you it doesn't mean it's okay ("I never gave that to him, but I saw him putting something in his bag"). Better to stay well away.

Like I said though, it seems pretty strange to fire someone for something so trivial. I completely agree with you - and I should have added above that I can't see how this particular case could stand up to a court challenge, given those other facts. I would hope that the union (assuming this person is a member) would be able to do something about this.

The need for secure staff lockers works both ways!

its unfortunate the cleaner has not got access to the internet whilst he is cleaning or is his break. to waste/use companies time is money. surely your "browsing the net" daily costs a lot more then two biscuits. your manager needs an urgent assessment.:ok:

Now if we lived under the tenet of "An eye, for an eye", all the security guards have to do is go around to his place & take two Monte Carlos! Simple really!:ok:

There seems to be an assumption from some of the participants in this thread that because the accused is just a cleaner, he must be guilty. They all take stuff and their jobs aren't important to them anyway. This is Australia not Bali. The man is innocent unless proven guilty. There is a vital missing link that can't be proved. Who put the Oreas in his bag. Until they nail him on that he needs the support of all staff who may find themselves in a similar position.
The accused is a union member. The Transport Workers Union. They have lodged a complaint to the AIRC and await a hearing. His co-workers tell us that the union advised him to resign on the spot. Two others did and have lost their jobs.
The members do not trust their union and are planning to walk off the job if the TWU lets them down. The accused is an employee with over 10 years service and an unblemished record, of Asian decent and popular with his workmates. The way Qantas have handled this is a disgrace and typical of the current leadership. I think $3.5 million per year is theft, but he sits up in first class eating as many Oreos as he likes.

As yet we only have the "rumour" that the reason for the dismissal was for the two biscuits.

This is correct - some cleaners we discussing this on the bus on Sat and mentioned the guy having a battery charger in his bag. Bit different to biccies.

Whole story would be handy.

In what way is his DESCENT relevant to any of the forgoing???

prospector

Sacked for stealing biscuits! How ridiculous.
The paper shufflers and self claimed moralist in the office need a reality check.( this would have been instigated by them)
The next time I see or hear one of them on a personal phone call or I see them surfing the net,Even if I see them loitering around the cafeteria I will accuse them of stealing!
After all according to the harsh terms they want to impose "stealing is stealing" and stealing QANTAS time is a huge offense.
bloody hypocrite's

Fascinating topic.

Reading a post about taking your crew meal with you, I can see how a company could make claim that you can't take it with you, but I wonder if they can discriminate between an employee and a customer (passenger)?

Thus if a passenger was to take the cheese and crackers for consumption later, would this also warrant prosecution? I could see that applying if a passenger were to take the cutlery. Then if was argued that it was reasonable to apply only to 'non-consumable' items, why wouldn't the same argument apply to an employee?

It also raises fears regarding receiving a 'freebie' if the cabin crew happen to recognise you and look upon you favourably.

I did the grocery shopping today and made a point of identifying an 'Oreo' . They are $2.08 a packet of about 20in my supermarket.

K

Having dealt with a few hundred unfair dismissals I can promise you all that there is going to be much more to this than meets the eye.
It could be that there has been a history of items going "missing" and security was asked to do an "impromptu" bag check to see if they could find anything.
On another note I don't think anyone has assumed this person is guilty. I think the vast majority of opinion is that IF he/she is guilty then there is no sympathy.
As I stated earlier, if the items in question are only the two biscuits then he/she will more than likely win the unfair dismissal claim and get their job back. BUT I think the two oreo story is just the tip of the iceberg.:( :( :(

qcc2 - just to fill you in, I sit in front of a computer almost all day. If I bring up PPRuNe every now and then while I'm waiting on hold or am waiting for someone on the other end to carry out an instruction I've given them, or if I've finished all my current tasks, that's my call. My responsibility to my employer is to get a job done. If my looking at PPRuNe was taking up so much time that my work wasn't getting done then yes certainly it would be a real issue, but it's nothing like that. I get emailed when someone replies to a thread I'm subscribed to, so I don't even have to keep the browser window open to check to see if there's any new posts.

My conscience is clear. Your circumstances are different, your experiences determine your conclusion of hypocrisy. Thanks for your concern. :D :ok:

fordran - good to hear an appeal's been lodged, I just hope the union fulfils their responsibility. If they don't or can't then what are they there for anyway?

Now if we lived under the tenet of "An eye, for an eye", all the security guards have to do is go around to his place & take two Monte Carlos! Simple really!:ok:

ROFLMAO!! Best comment on the whole thread and sums it all up perfectly Buster! :ok: :ok: :ok:

I used to work in that area and a couple of years ago the Ramp management gave radios and chargers to all team superviosrs to take home. This was because too many things got lost or damaged, basically no one cared for the equipment. As far as I know the company hasn't asked for any back.

For the resoning impaired, who believe 'theft is theft'- What type of world do you want to create? Have some compassion and understanding. You're not perfect either and one day, when you may do something that could somehow be classified as 'theft', then I hope you get some dim-witted 'regulation reader' make you eat your words.:yuk:

Hmm, I wonder if while I am walking down the street and I throw a sandwich i dont want to finish in the bin. Then a homeless guy comes and pulls out the sandwich to eat, can I have the man charged with theft of my sandwich?

As far as I am concerned those biscuits were to be thrown out hence they were garbage. Stealing garbage isnt a crime last time I checked and if it is a crime now then it really shows the sad state of the world today.

Yes theft is theft but show some common sense already! The least QF could have done was give the guy a warning. If he already had warnings then it might be at least a little more reasonable

"This is correct - some cleaners we discussing this on the bus on Sat and mentioned the guy having a battery charger in his bag. Bit different to biccies."

No battery charger buddy. One cleaner was caught with a korjo adapter that may be worth $5 or $10. He admitted to the theft and was sacked on the spot. The guy with the Oreos is another one.

"Having dealt with a few hundred unfair dismissals I can promise you all that there is going to be much more to this than meets the eye."

They were looking for alcohol that has been dissappearing from Mel regularly. They found Oreos. They sacked him and assumed he put them in his bag. They can't prove it.

DownDraught, you must have missed this from my first post on this thread, easy to do when there's so much to read:

Where I work there's a line in the Employee Handbook that states: The Organisation's resources may be used for personal purposes as long as the use is not excessive.

Again, thanks for your concern - your views may apply in your workplace, but not mine.

The Rules I stated are what I do my best to apply to myself, I thought I'd share them here on the off chance that someone else might think they were worth using for themselves. I'm not trying to present myself as some paragon of virtue either ... we are all hypocrites in some way, do you think I'd openly talk about using the internet while at work, thus bringing down cries of "hypocrite", if I was trying to falsely make myself out to be some shining light of moral ethics? I brought it up as an example of what some workplaces allow - my workplace allows it, so leave it at that.

Again - the Rules are what I try to apply to my own life - you don't like them, don't use them - easy.

And I wasn't saying that the person should be punished for stealing two biscuits, I simply said that if the person didn't pay for them, then the biscuits didn't belong to them. I also said it's pretty strange to fire someone over such a trivial thing.

No battery charger buddy. One cleaner was caught with a korjo adapter that may be worth $5 or $10. He admitted to the theft and was sacked on the spot. The guy with the Oreos is another one.

Ok - your story is changing here *buddy*

In your original post you said:
A Melbourne cleaner was sacked from the great Australian airline yesterday over the alleged theft of 2 biscuits
and
Two other cleaners were questioned on the same day over Qantas property found in their bags and accepted the offer by the airline to resign on the spot.

So who is who now?

One would hope after 100s of unfair dismissal cases you would have your facts straight.

2 resigned, one sacked in your words, so how were oreo man and battery charger boy both sacked?

And if battery charger boy was sacked then oero man resigned and that's not unfair dismissal is it?

wishtobflying, you're correct, I did miss that, post deleted.

Addressing the initial issue of employees 'stealing' food that is to be thrown away anyway.... and what constitutes 'stealing'.....

I once worked for a company that had a big problem with catering/crew meals etc going missing... they decided to have a set area aside for 'take what you want'... anything that was unable to be used again on another flight and would normally be thrown away would be put in here, anything in there was fair game for anyone wishing to take it home... get caught taking anything from anywhere else and suffer the consequences....!

Surely QF could have some sort of way of doing this... everyone knows groundies/rampers etc scrounge the biccies on turnaround... at least if there was some way they could 'control' what the ground staff (and others) take, then the problem would likely be reduced a great deal... people would feel they can have 'something'... without the problem of knowing 'what' to take... and the company would know that only the 'leftovers' were being taken...

Principle of proportionality comes into it (or is that just EU law?).

You're all right, theft is theft but there is the argument that if a firm pursues heavy-handed policies, it is not exactly the best way to promote staff co-operation generally. That firm's management can kiss goodbye any form of substantive staff-led cost-saving (like turning lights off, printing on both sides of the paper, little things that properly motivated staff would think to do of their own volition, which save a damn sight more than a couple of oreos).

Then there's the cost of the action itself. There are administrative costs associated with processing a worker's dismissal. Then the firm will still need someone to do the sacked person's job, so the firm will have to carry the cost of recruiting the replacement (unless they don't replace, in which case he might have an action for unfair dismissal as it was effectively a redundancy so he'd probably qualify for more lolly as a payout).

Shareholders might be within their rights to ask about the origin of this policy at the AGM as it would appear from the above that it is costing the company money. If that's the case, then if it can be traced back to a director, then maybe that director's position may be untenable as they appear not to be fulfilling their statutory duty to look after the company's affairs to the best interests of its shareholders; in fact they are actively working against shareholder's interests by pursuing a policy under which it can reasonably foreseen that there will be a net cost to the company.

And if they couldn't see that there would be a net cost to the company, then perhaps there is an argument that that director has either been negligent or is simply unfit to be a director.

I am not condoning theft here; merely asking, what is the purpose behind the blanket policy? I agree there should be some sanction against the staff member. The idea of a threshold for disciplinary action was mentioned earlier; that threshold should be, the cost to the firm. Knicking a biscuit? Loss of some privilege and a mark on the person's record, to stand against them in the event of future disciplinary proceedings. Knocking off (say) a bottle of First bubbly? Greater loss of privileges and docked pay to recover. Taking (say) cash or MCOs or some item of hardware? Out the door, possible police report. Staff would understand this and, most likely, co-operate. The relevant union would not be able to argue against it.

This topic is interesting.

A couple of years ago, I was extremely poor (new job meant relocation costs had me sleeping in my car in a regional town until first pay day). I didnt advertise this at the time (was embarrasing), but a few of my crew clicked on.

I got home one night after 5 sectors (to the quiet spot I had found on the side of the road) and discovered two sick bags full of cheese and biccies in my bag. (not quite as bad as chappelles case I know)...

At the time, I wasnt eating outside of work (couldnt afford it), so the only meals I had were the ones i could scavange on the plane at work.

I worked for a pretty relaxed company - but if someone else puts it in my bag is it theft?

I did learn my lesson about taking crew meals home a couple months later, when the thai chicken noodles I took home (when i had a home finally) and reheated for brekky gave me dreadful food poisoning which saw me pulled off duty upline, and collapse in a taxi. (the hotel manager and cab driver carried me up to my room!).

To all those who agree that the cleaner should be sacked for taking 2 biscuits ,I think we should also bring in some other measures to stop the rot within our society.

I was wrong about him stealing 2 biscuits ,next it will be a sachet of suger or maybe even a half eaten muffin...where will it stop..

For those who have committed heinous crimes such as littering, crossing the road without a green light and wearing Ugg boots in public we could have public hangings every Friday in front of Town Hall.

We could bring back stoning for serious crimes such as late payment of parking fines and for mis-use of office pens as well as wearing sun glasses inside buildings.

Further punishment for other criminal acts such as arriving late for work could be dealt with by feeding them to the Lions at Taronga Park Zoo. Some of the old deterrents favoured by the Romans worked a treat and should be re-evaluated in this modern day not only to punish criminals but to provide entertainment for the masses.

Don’t start me on those whom cannot spell correctly regardless of whether they are in a correctional facility or not as well as politicians or those people whose mobile phones ring in the movies. The value of public floggings, beheading and other forms of physiotherapy are played down and should be re-instated.

We have to act now or society as we know it is doomed

THe Poms used to transport thieves to Orstraylia a couple of hundred years ago for stealing a loaf of bread, so the legend goes.

This bloke was 200 years too late. He could have had a good holiday.

OK then for all those out there who believe that stealing rubbish is all right, what about this question.

How do we know the biscuits were not taken from the Galley? Could they have been used on the next flight? Were they rubbish at all?

I know it sounds stupid and excessive to sack someone for two biscuits (and it is really, as I have stated previously) but the company has to ensure that theft is limited as much as possible.

A warning in this case (provided facts as reported are close to the truth) would have been more appropriate but when the loss control guys get their blood up there is little anyone can do to stop them.

Myself and others have tried to explain that the Oreo's are give aways and are basically free advertising that the company does not pay for..

They are one time only and not to be used for company stores,if any are found they are thrown out along with all the other usual rubbish..

They are not stored in the gally and never have...

they are given out in the snack in Q bags as a mid flight snack..

If he had one hundred of them and was selling them a some market on the weekend then that is different because he is gaining financially and or commercially from the removal and sale of said Oreo's but if he was just taking one packet for morning tea and that packet has no commercial value to the company then I don't believe it was stealing at all...it was rubbish...

Ok so they are rubbish. I get the picture.

But the employee is still not authorised to take anything from the aircraft for their own personal use. Where do you draw the line.

Has the world gone mad?

In the words of Eric Bana: “This is a shimozzle!”

If it was only to biscuits the guy took and there was no prior history, get over this nonsense give the guy his job back before this costs Qantas a fortune - and while they are at it perhaps instigate some of the ideas put forward here so as to put the first foot of rudder in this flat spin engagement is in, a spin that will need someone like CB at the controls off to recover anyhow...

e.g. i was asked to sit in on a mediation (work cover) regarding a workers compensation claim. the claim manager and legal guy came from interstate . the whole meeting took 2 minutes. by that time they admitted liability and promised to pay the costs.it was all about around $400.-. now add the costs. 2 j/class tickets morning arrival late afternoon return flight(i checked their arrival/ departure through a mate), claim for lunch, have a nice day in town. thats how qf works.

"notmyC150v2"

Where do we draw the line?...Have you ever made a personal call from an office phone?

I do not know of anyone who works in an office who has not and as the cost of the phone is about the same or more than the 2 biscuits then would you hand in your resignation?

Unless this a just a bit of a bigger picture with the cleaner he/she is no more guilty than anyone else who has made a personal call yet they have been sacked..where do you draw the line?

As I have said previously,

1. If this was the only reason the person was dismissed then it will be unfair and certainly harsh.

2. I believe there may be more to this than meets the eye.

If I am wrong insofar as (2) above is concerned then I am sure the union will succeed in the reinstatement application.

There is a well known case here in Qld called the "David Jones Case" which was very similar. In that case a shop assistant with no previous warnings walked past the old lolly display (the one that used to rotate the lollies around the cabinet) and grabbed one - read it - one lolly.

Security followed her to the door and when she tried to leave they took her up to the security office and there they held her for over 2 hours, questioning her the whole time about the "theft" of the lolly.

She was then summarily dismissed.

The QIRC subsequently found in the unfair dismissal hearing that the dismissal and the actions which led to it were way out of line in relation to the offence and that the employee deserved a final warning but not dismissal.

I can't remember if she was reinstated or not but she certainly won the case.

This is similar don't you think????

Of course the cookies did not belong to QANTAS but they were taken from their aircraft in breach of QANTAS policy (and I am sure the policy of the contractor who undoubtably employed him/her). so it is not a question of whether a wrong has been done but a question of whether the punishment fits the crime.


Please note that the AIRC will probably still find that the employee deserved a final warning.

so it is not a question of whether a wrong has been done but a question of whether the punishment fits the crime.
Please note that the AIRC will probably still find that the employee deserved a final warning.

Incorrect. It is not a question of whether the punishment fits the crime. In saying this you are assuming his guilt. He does not know how the Oreos got into his bag. Neither does Qantas. They are assuming it was him but it could have been any of a large number of staff who had access to the bag during his shift. The question at law will be - did the staff member beyond any reasonable doubt intentially attempt to remove goods from the Melbourne airport that were not his?

If the courts find that the sacking was on unproven grounds he will most likely get re-instated, compensated and sacked several weeks later in some redundancy program.

If they do find that he put the Oreos in the bag, then we can ask does the punishment fit the crime.

Ok - your story is changing here *buddy*
So who is who now?
One would hope after 100s of unfair dismissal cases you would have your facts straight.
2 resigned, one sacked in your words, so how were oreo man and battery charger boy both sacked?
And if battery charger boy was sacked then oero man resigned and that's not unfair dismissal is it?

-Never said I'd been involved in 100's of unfair dismissal cases. That was another participant.
-Explained yesterday that there was no battery charger involved. It was a korjo adapter. You made up the story about a charger.
-Never changed any stories. 3 cleaners were sacked. 2 of them accepted the company offer to resign instead to keep their super.
-That leaves one. He remained sacked for attempting to steal 2 Oreos.


Don't confuse the issue.

I have to agree with C150, there must be much more to this story, else the cleaner is going to win an unfair dismissal case (assuming he is employed by Qantas, if he' is employed by a contractor with less than 100 employees, then unfair dismissal laws don't apply anymore(I think).

The concept of proportionality and also equity is important - look at the Board of Qantas "rewarding itself" with Grange and similar Boardroom tipples. Why should not a cleaner "reward" himself with an Oreo assuming it is surplus to requirements?

I cannot think of an office where company stationary has not been freely used for a variety of non company purposes, from copying childrens homework and up. Same goes for phone calls and internet use. Similarly there is no engineering facility anywhere on earth where "foriegners" don't appear (Foriegner = using company equipment to repair some personal item, like the magnesium handle of my chainsaw).

Having said all that, I think there must be more to it. Dismissing someone for stealing is a devastating business tactic. I know of one case where a manager was set up for this as an example, because its rife in the car industry. You can do it to almost anyone, just catch them with a company pencil.

I hope we get the dope on this after all it is a rumour website.

However, if this is just a bullying tactic, then I'm afraid it will badly misfire because of Sunfish's law of equity:- The lowest employee can make more trouble for the CEO then the CEO can make for the employee". If this guy's workmates decide that this action was unfair, then I think their revenge is going to be highly creative.

-Explained yesterday that there was no battery charger involved. It was a korjo adapter. You made up the story about a charger.

No, I repeated what the cleaners were saying on the bus.
Never changed any stories. 3 cleaners were sacked. 2 of them accepted the company offer to resign instead to keep their super.

Super is protected by law (thats what protected benefit means) - don't lose it if you are sacked.

If you choose to resign even after it's been offered, then it's not unfair dismissal.

You are talking twaddle hear mate - QF is not industrially naive - you only have to read about the wages shafting we get every EBA.

Where there is smoke there is fire and if QF legal said it's ok to sack your boy then there is a lot more to the story.

Tell us the whole truth.

QF's legal team may not be naive, but QF's Melbourne Airport management have lost a couple of dismissal case because they did not follow the policy to the letter. I would not be surprised if it also happens in this case.

Notmyc150v2..
I don’t see how you can compare the “David Jones” case to the Melbourne cleaners..
The “Lolly” that the staff member took was of commercial importance to David Jones and could have been sold for a financial gain if only a small one.

The 2 biscuits as I have said were not for sale or further use and therefore of no possible commercial or financial gain to QF and therefore does not put the company in any position where they are disadvantaged by the consumption of said Oreo’s..

Therein lies the difference and that is the financial aspect of the item…

PS you did not tell us if you have ever made a personal call from an office phone which as a financial cost (if only a small one) to the organisation requires you to resign forthwith…

This is bizarre...when I first joined PX I learnt the very first morning I walked out to an aircraft about theft...half the torches missing and ALL the batteries...turns out that something like 3000 torches and 30000 batteries a year dissappeared out of PX aircraft..total fleet 2 dash 7s, 2 A310 and about 8 F28s.

EVERY first flight of the day pre flight was the same for the 5+ yrs I was there...and when accused the relevant national union claimed it was the pilots and we should have our nav bags searched after every flight...but search our members and we'll ground the airline....hey didn't search our nav bags but neither did they search the ground staff, cleaners and engineers...and the theft continued.

Seems there should be a little proportionality applied here...bit like the ex PX Captain who went to work for SQ...came out of the cockpit for a wee half way to Dhaka or somewhere and saw some yummy cakes on a trolley that the pax didn't eat..."Gee yummy I'll have one of these and this one...thanks" and goes back into the cockpit...some days later he gets dragged up to BS castle and carpeted...please explain why you were STEALING company property?????

The CSO had dobbed him in.!!!

What has gone wrong with the world?

Answer= management by beancounters!!!

Super is protected by law (thats what protected benefit means) - don't lose it if you are sacked.
If you choose to resign even after it's been offered, then it's not unfair dismissal.
You are talking twaddle hear mate - QF is not industrially naive - you only have to read about the wages shafting we get every EBA.
Where there is smoke there is fire and if QF legal said it's ok to sack your boy then there is a lot more to the story.
Tell us the whole truth.

I started this thread to pass on what I know about the sacking of a cleaner for stealing 2 biscuits. Not to get told I'm talking twaddle by a Qantas Manager. Qf is not industrially naive and yes what has happened is an embarrasment to the airline. If I was them I'd send a manager onto this site and get him to try and divert the subject as well.

I know you can't lose all your super. The threat from management is that the productivity account held in the defined benefit scheme of some Qantas super divisions will be altered and you will get less. The astute management team just tell them they will lose super. Resign and we'll let you keep it all. It makes their job easier with less paperwork.

You can chose to resign and later claim unfair dismissal. If undue pressure was placed on you to make that decision you may have a case. There is currently one running on behalf of three LAMEs who resigned in Sydney.

Chuck wrote:
half the torches missing and ALL the batteries...turns out that something like 3000 torches and 30000 batteries a year dissappeared out of PX aircraft..total fleet 2 dash 7s, 2 A310 and about 8 F28s.


Chuck, you know those "special toys" get a good workout on overnights, eh?:E They gotta get spare batteries from somewhere:}

Lowerlobe,

The commercial importance is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the employee breached a policy not to take stuff from the aircraft. If there is no policy then the guy will win the case. If there is a policy then I suspect he will still win, subject to my former tip of the iceberg comments.

As to whether I have used the phone at work for personal calls, Mate that is just the start of it. I could probably be slapped in prison for what I have done BUT I haven't been caught and that is the difference.:E :E :E :E

Just an (academic) idea to chuck around...


Taking up the point about person or persons unknown having access to the cleaners bag:

When a passenger check-in, they are asked the standard "Packed it yourself? Any sharps? Carrying anything for anyone else? Have you left your bag unattended at all and could anyone have tampered with it?

Not only does the carrier not want any dangerous items to go into the air; the airport doesn't want any dangerous goods airside.

So, one might wonder if the security controller (person or company) of the airside area where the cleaner was (and was forced to leave his bag), was negligent...

That is, get some publicity on this and shine the light on inadequate airside security procedures. Reopen the camel suit/Corby concerns over people being able to slip things in bags.

Big picture here, folks? Do most people think that commonsense has taken a huge vacation? To those who claim the high moral ground that stealing is stealing, I suggest you don't ever take up a position where Sharia law rules. You might find your sanctimoniousness coming back to eat you.

What in God's name has happened to the Australia that I grew up in? This is simply bullshit.

Binoculars..

Well said....

Taildragger

My recollection of bailment is something different but first I would ask:- Why would some consideration not pass from QF to Nabisco or whoever the manufacturer is? Secondly... Why is Australia's national carrier serving the American national bis... sorry, cookie?

Back to the issue: If QF is a bailee and joe bloggs has pinched the goods, they would still be in their rights to a) sack him if he is an employee or (and I am speculating here) b) if he is a contractor I am certain there would be a clause regarding theft and instant dismissal.

Privity of contract wouldn't really arise as an issue - QF are vicariously liable to the bailor if their servant destroys, damages or converts the subject of the bailment.

...at least, I hope that's right :uhoh:

On the original tack of this thread, the union at one of my workplaces (no, not my aviation workplace...) has made it clear that if you are caught stealing they won't do anything to protect you... in fact the words used were "...we'll hold the door open while management kicks your criminal arse out the door." Thieving affects everybody and yes, it affects the bottom line.

Notmyc150v2….

You were the one that brought up the analogy of the David Jones example and yes I do believe that there is a huge difference with anything to be gained financially..You made my point exactly when you said the difference was that you had not been caught….just think about what you have said, you should be on the Qantas board ,if you are not already

The company does these sort of things every now and again to lower morale because they really do not like anyone enjoying their job….sad really..To anyone here that does not work for QF,you have no idea what we are talking about

If this ever went to court and this is the first case against him/her then I imagine it would be laughed out of court contrary to all those holier than thou posting here that stealing is stealing ..

What in God's name has happened to the Australia that I grew up in?Ah yes, things were SO-OOOO much better back then. The butter tasted better, kids repected their elders and no-one EVER got sacked for stealing.... :rolleyes: Come on, I'm you're smarter than that.

Use your head. Who T H ever gets sacked for stealing an oreo??? The guy probably had a list of transgressions the size of Geoff Dixon's...................... Christmas bonus. I would carefully suggest that maybe, just maybe, this sacking was probably the result of a long period of warnings and repeat offences against Rat policies. It's not heart-surgery, you know....

And who in their right mind is going to move to ShariaLand anyway? That's like suggesting blokes should not go putting their nutz in a vice. Very astute.

I would carefully suggest that maybe, just maybe, this sacking was probably the result of a long period of warnings and repeat offences against Rat policies.


And should that prove to be the case, Your Lordship, it would be, as the saying goes, an entirely different kettle of fish. I am only commenting on the facts that have been presented here so far, not the assumptions that others make based on those limited facts. Err, like your quote above, for example.


I won't get sidetracked into a Good Old Days reminiscence thread, but I would definitely suggest that in these days of society being run totally by beancounters, then the great god of common sense has most certainly taken an extended holiday, and millions of ordinary people anxiously await its return. Take that as you will.

Simple if you lift it pay for it. Outside that it's theft even in Coles or Woollies, so why would people pinching Camel heads be except.:rolleyes:

QF Quoll,

I generally agree.

What I'm saying here is (at the risk of thread drift) that the bagging of a couple of biccies is, in isolation, hardly grounds for summary termination. But I think there is an issue, with bags being left unattended (which, from what has been previously posted in this thread, what happened). It has been raised as a defence (probably to show that there has been an abuse of process by the employer) and is an angle that should be explored.

If it is shown that someone could have tampered with, or deposited something in, the cleaner's bag, then irrespective of the biccies, that is in itself a problem which needs addressing.

That is, if it's deemed necessary to try to ensure that punters' bags could not have been tampered with when they are airside (by having security cameras and in a secure area, etc.), then surely the same standard applies to workers' bags.

Good point Binos. It was indeed an ASSumption but I stand by it.....:ok:

It's seems bizarre that this guy (without all the info) was sacked for 2 biscuits yet in todays paper, there's a QF FA on charges of child pornography & chatting up an undercover Police officer in a internet chat room still employed. Granted, this didn't happen on company time, but I just find it bizarre.:confused:

there's a QF FA on charges of child pornography & chatting up an undercover Police officer in a internet chat room still employed. Granted, this didn't happen on company time, but I just find it bizarre.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not Warren again, Buster??

Casper that is totally out of line...

casper,one of the great things about our society in Australia is that even when charged with a crime you are innocent until proven guilty...unlike some other countries.

No Casper, but if you look it up in the HeraldSun, they've published his name & a photo!

Buster Hyman what the hell is wron with you? An eye for an eye? Come on an Oreo is nowhere near as good as a Monte Carlo. For two Oreos they could have a bite of a Monte.

But to be serrious this is just crazy talk. I used to work the ramps and we would eat stuff and take things that were being thrown out all the time. Nothing wrong with that. Wonder what Qantas would do if a homless dude was found taking a sandwich out of one of their bins. I can just see them putting in gun turrets as I type.

Helldog…

What I find crazy is all the sanctimonious executioners here calling for or condoning the sacking of someone over something so trivial when they have probably done exactly the same at some point...

lowerlobe,

In your first post in this thread you stated:
"You are all right when you say that theft is wrong and should not be condoned."

Most have agreed with that statement, however, in this day and age not many would think it was possible to sack someone for such a "Little' theft. It is patently obvious that there is more behind this and it will no doubt be revealed in the fullness of time.

Prospector

Prospector...
That’s right I don’t condone stealing however there has to be some difference between petty theft( even if I don’t believe taking waste is stealing) and theft on a more grand scale...

My point was that there would be virtually no one that has not done the same as the cleaner however there are a lot here saying he should be dealt with harshly for the trivial removal of two biscuits.

If this is the end result of an investigation and the person involved has a prior history then that is another matter but after working for the company for a number of years I have seen other examples of ham fisted behaviour by security guards running rough shod over employees all in the name of preventing theft while the management has been operating on a far larger scale with impunity.

Maybe Qantas are going to use him as an example?
Yes it may cost the company money to fire him and go through the paperwork, but the end result is that more employees are scared of being sacked over somthing they see a trivial. This would effect theft in other areas such as torches and Batteries or whatever else you can nick of the plane, things that are cheep as individual items but when stolen by 2000+ crew and cleaners becomes a hefty bill.
I'm not saying that the individual case is fair, but what is? :confused:

You don't get to "make an example" of someone these days. There has to be more to this than meets the eye as others have speculated, otherwise "natural justice" and "procedural fairness" theories will have him reinstated.

On a slightly different note, I wonder how many applications for an ASIC have been knocked back on the grounds of criminal offences? I wonder when these will turn up in either the AAT or Supreme court?

I suspect that a court might rule that it is illegal to remove someone's livelihood by retrospective legislation of this nature.

I think I understand that this concept is going to be challenged in the Victorian Supreme court in a case involving the banning of a teacher from teaching on the grounds of an affair with an underage girl 20 years ago - and long before he even thought of becoming a teacher.