T6592
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, Tasmanian Branch and Blue Ribbon Meat Products Pty Ltd
Industrial dispute - termination of employment - application dismissed REASONS FOR DECISION This application, lodged by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, Tasmanian Branch (the applicant), pursuant to section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, was for the purpose of settling a dispute over the termination of employment of Mr Trevor Monson (the employee). The employee, who was a Quality Assurance Officer, employed by Blue Ribbon Meat Products Pty Ltd (the employer), was terminated from his position at the employer's Smithton Plant on 10 October 1996 after he was found guilty, by the employer, of being directly involved in the relabelling of a product, resulting in an alteration to the product's description. The employer believed it was done in an attempt to defraud the company. During proceedings evidence was given under oath by the employee. Mr Cameron, for the employer, adduced evidence from three witnesses. That evidence brought to light the following: Until recently employees of the employer were entitled to a meat allowance that would enable them to procure meat to the value of the allowance, at regular intervals, so long as they followed certain procedures. On 10 October 1996 Mr Kevin Smith, [whom the employee believed to be the Quality Assurance Manager, however, there was evidence to suggest that Mr Smith was a trainee manager] asked the employee to get him two cartons of meat (20 kilos each) from the cool room - one of cubed rolls and the other of topsides. This order formed part of Mr Smith's meat allowance and as it was his last day at work it seemed as though his aim was to fully exhaust his allowance. The employee informed Mr Smith that there were no cartons of topsides in the cool room and there was only eye rounds. Mr Smith told the employee that he would take a carton of eye rounds and the employee maintained that Mr Smith directed him to change the description on the label that was stuck to the lid of the carton. The employee took the carton of eye rounds to Mr Jason Moles, who was in charge of the labelling and weighing machines, and directed him to change the label on the carton from eye rounds to topsides. When Mr Moles received the carton for weighing and relabelling, the securing straps were cut and the lid was removed. After relabelling had taken place, the relabelled carton, along with the second carton of meat (which is not in dispute), were taken by the employee and Mr Smith to the office, where their cost was debited against Mr Smith's meat allowance. However, because the label had been changed Mr Smith's account was debited for one carton of topsides instead of eye rounds. Another employee, Ms Theresa Shelley, after seeing some discussion taking place, asked Mr Moles what was wrong. Mr Moles replied that he was told by the employee to change the label on the carton. She later informed Mr Peter Taylor, the Boning Room Manager, that the product description on the carton may not accurately reflect its contents. Representatives of the employer then conducted an investigation. Later on that day the employee was recalled to work (having finished his shift earlier in the afternoon) and was questioned by the Plant Manager in the presence of the Boning Room Manager. When asked by the Plant Manager, the employee initially denied having been involved in changing the label on a carton of meat. However, later he admitted his involvement, but said that he had done it at the request of Mr Smith. The employer later spoke to Mr Smith, but by this time he no longer worked for the company. After he had completed his investigation, the Plant Manager decided to dismiss the employee. He said he was dissatisfied with the explanation given by the employee and his involvement in the relabelling incident. Mr Swallow, of The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, Tasmanian Branch, for the employee, submitted that the incident leading to the employee's termination was trivial in that the difference between the cost of the eye rounds and the topsides amounted to approximately $9.00 and the employee had not gained personally from the incident. He said that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable and that the employee should have been given a warning or counselled. Mr Cameron, of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, for the employer, took the Commission to the strict requirements imposed on the employer by controlling bodies, such as AUS-MEAT and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). He said that the employee had certain qualifications in relation to quality assurance work and on his own admission he was aware of the consequences of relabelling and he knew the procedures to be followed when a carton of meat had to be relabelled. He said that if cartons of meat were inspected by the authorities and incorrect trade descriptions were shown on the labels of the cartons, then the export licence held by the employer was obviously at risk. It was Mr Cameron's submission that the incident itself went to the heart of the employment contract, in that the employee's duties to the employer were, amongst other things: to act in good faith; to use his skills and training on behalf of the employer; protect the employer's interests; not to act in a manner that is hostile to the employer's interests. Mr Cameron said that the employee's actions in deliberately changing a label could have severely affected the employer in that it was in direct breach of the procedures set out by AUS-MEAT and AQIS, and for that matter, the company's own policy. Mr Cameron stated that the employer dismissed the employee because he:
Mr Cameron said that the actions of the employee had led to a breakdown in trust that the company would have in him to carry out the duties associated with his position. In response to Mr Swallow's submission that the dispute being trivial, Mr Cameron relied on Irene Schaeffer v. Dealore Pty Ltd, trading as Hawker Festival, Industrial Relations Court of Australia AI 1046 of 1996 Linkenbagh JR where it stated on page 6:
Mr Cameron also relied on Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 698 where Lord Evershed outlined the kind of misconduct which would warrant dismissal. His Lordship stated that:
and
CONCLUSION In arriving at my decision in this matter I have carefully examined the evidence presented by the witnesses and the submissions of the applicant and the respondent and I have arrived at the conclusion that the employee was directly involved in assisting another employee to change the description on a carton of meat that had the result of leading other people to conclude that the contents of the carton was something different to that which was contained inside. On his own admission, the position held by the employee was one of trust and carried a lot of responsibility and as a Quality Assurance Officer he understood that it was against AUS-MEAT, AQIS and the company policy to change the product description, unless their was a requirement to do so and then only under strict reporting procedures. Whilst the employee asserted that he was directed to falsify the label on a carton by another person, nevertheless, he, as a Quality Assurance Officer, had various options open to him - he could have brought the significance of that request to the person's attention; he could have refused; and finally, if the person kept demanding that the label be changed, then, he could reported it to management. In an industry that relies on a certain amount of self regulation, it is essential that quality assurance officers carry out their duties without fear or favour and observe that all the necessary procedures required by the relevant authorities, including the accurate labelling of packaged products. In this case it has been established that the employee was prepared to by-pass the rules. During the course of this matter the employee could not provide the Commission with any satisfactory reason for doing what he did, and therefore I can only arrive at the conclusion that it was a foolish action or it was done in a deliberate attempt to deceive the person who was required to debit the cost of the meat against Mr Smith's meat allowance and, ultimately, the employer. Given the foregoing, I am not prepared to intervene in this matter as I have not been satisfied that the employee's dismissal was invalid, nor was it established that he was denied some procedural fairness, natural justice or industrial fair play, and I so Order.
R J Watling Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing |