Two biscuits costs Qantas cleaner his job
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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...
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.
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 29th Jan 2006 at 21:49.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Evertonian
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
"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
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What are the facts exactly???
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.
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.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
“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
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hypocrisy at its best wishtobflying
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.
Evertonian
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As yet we only have the "rumour" that the reason for the dismissal was for the two biscuits.
Whole story would be handy.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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