Two biscuits costs Qantas cleaner his job
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by notmyC150v2
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.
Please note that the AIRC will probably still find that the employee deserved a final warning.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pimp Daddy
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?
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?
-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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fordran
-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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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…
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…
Grandpa Aerotart
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!!!
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!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pimp Daddy
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.
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 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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck wrote:
Chuck, you know those "special toys" get a good workout on overnights, eh?
They gotta get spare batteries from somewhere
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?
They gotta get spare batteries from somewhere
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 6th Feb 2006 at 12:46.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 bull****.
What in God's name has happened to the Australia that I grew up in? This is simply bull****.
Bailment
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
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.
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
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.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ..
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 ..
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Binoculars
What in God's name has happened to the Australia that I grew up in?
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.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.