|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Cinema Fined $25,000 For Firing Someone Undercharging For A Hot Dog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-21-2014 08:16 PM
Looking a bit deeper than the news report, and having lived in the UK for a while, and thus understanding a bit about how this stuff works...
A reasonable report appears in The Irish Herald, the salient bit of which is:
quote:
The operations manager told the hearing that any discrepancy between what was signed for by the staff member and the actual goods received was viewed as a breach of policy.
It was both the original decision-maker's and the appeal decision-maker's view that the breach of policy by Mr Meade amounted to gross misconduct and merited dismissal.
In its decision, just published, the tribunal found that Mr Meade was unfairly dismissed.
It pointed to the evidence of both the original decision-maker and the person who heard the appeal that the mere fact that there was a breach of the policy in relation to staff discounted purchases meant that an act of gross misconduct had occurred and that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.
Also, from Terence J. O'Sullivan Solicitors (warning - annoying site with popups)
quote:
The Claimant also submitted that he did not receive a copy of the Staff Discount Policy, and did not realise the serious implications of such a breach of this policy.
So, the employee should have been fired, as the Americans put it, "for cause". However, the employer failed to be a good employer and thus got fined a lot of money instead. A good employer would have a process in place to make sure the employees are aware of all policies to which they are subject, with evidence, and also have a meaningful employment resolution process.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-27-2014 11:24 PM
In Europe, that would be called "constructive dismissal", and you'd get bollocked for that too.
This all sounds like a nightmare, but it's not: All that is required is that one needs to be is a decent employer, with reasonable policies, that are communicated to employees, and when there are disputes, one acts reasonably. They is being an employer 101, don't be an arse. If an employer can't manage to not be an arse then they deserve to be fined $25K or whatever.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-28-2014 12:17 PM
You haul the guy into the office, show him the video recordings, put the computer printouts on the desk in front of him and say, "This will not happen again. Will it?"
The second time it happens, the guy is placed on shifts where management can keep him under closer supervision. It can't be Friday or Saturday. The theater is too busy. Night shifts, when business is slow, are the logical times when managers have more time to supervise problematic employees.
Yes, he is a problematic employee. I have it on record. I have video recordings. I have computer printouts. I have the disciplinary write ups..
At this point, if the guy makes another mistake, it's a mandatory three day vacation. He's had his three strikes and if it happens again, that's all she wrote.
"Putting him on night shift" is basically shorthand for all of that.
If the guy doesn't like that, he's not obliged to keep working here. That's what "employment at will" means.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-28-2014 03:02 PM
So one of two things happened.
Scenario A - the manager overreacted and canned this individual without following the procedure to the letter, there being no other history of problems involving this guy.
Scenario B - the employee was considered a problem for other reasons, and they were looking for an excuse (with some sort of hard evidence) to can him.
However, the overriding aspect of this to me is that there was clearly a premeditated attempt by the employee to deceive his employer. The fact that the amount of money involved is just €1 is to me irrelevant: the relevant point is that after discovering the deception, the employer has a valid reason to claim that there can no longer be a trusting professional relationship between the two.
On the Europe/US issue, I agree with Steve. As someone who has worked in Europe and the US, there are clear differences in the culture and law relating to employment. Europe has a huge legal infrastructure related to employment that sits between informal negotiation and a full-scale lawsuit. In the UK it's called "employment tribunals". When they work well, they enable disputes of minor to intermediate significance to be worked out relatively efficiently, but the downside is that they can be abused by troublemakers, the workshy etc. to exact revenge on employers. In the US (or in California, at least), the impression I get is that there is no formal mechanism for resolving disputes between an employer and employee short of a full-scale lawsuit (unless the workplace is unionized), meaning that troublemakers/workshy have much less of a free ride, but that innocent victims of bad employers have very few options besides the nuclear one.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-28-2014 07:48 PM
In most of Europe, employment laws are indeed rather strict. Once you give someone a fixed contract, you're usually not able to dismiss someone for whatever reason you please. If you want to get rid of somebody, you should start documenting. You should start to give formal warnings and document those too.
None of the linked documents clearly state that he intended to deceive his employer. Also, one article clearly states:
quote:
The Claimant had a good working record with the Respondent up to the date of the incident which led to his dismissal.
So, either this was just "on paper" (which actually counts during a lawsuit), or there is more to the story.
And I rather doubt any judge will see a one-time error of about €1 as gross misconduct, especially without proof of any previous misconducts. Everybody who has worked in retail/catering businesses know that similar mistakes happen to everybody now and then, but often also in favor of the employer.
Something I don't get, but maybe this is some Irish thing: Employees are required to sign each receipt? Is this according to some local law? It really doesn't sound practical...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic