Dismissal subject of claim

Press, 30 June 1983, Page 4

Dismissal subject of claim

The provision of hot meals to the employees of a Timara supermarket led to claims of dishonesty, the dismissal of one of the employees, and a hearing before the Arbitration Court in Christchurch yesterday. The New Zealand Shop Employees Union claimed that Mac Kay’s Food Centre, Ltd, of Timaru, was unjustified in sacking Mr G. F. Chamberlain on June 25 last year on the basis that he had failed to pay for two meals provided by the supermarket.

The union asked that Mr Chamberlain be awarded the difference between the wages he would have been Kid and the unemployment nefit which he received for 10 months.

Mr A. A. Couch represented the union, and Mr C. L. McPhail represented McKay’s Food Centre. Judge Horn and Messrs P. L. Oldham and D. Jacobs reserved their decision.

Mr Chamberlain told the Court that he had been employed in the supermarket where he had stocked shelves and looked after stock for less than a year when hot meals became available to the staff from the supermarket’s delicatessan department. He usually ordered a meal in the morning, collected and ate it during his lunch break, and paid for it at the check-out at some

time during the day. He said he had not been aware of a rule that staff had to pay for anything they purchased before it was eaten.

On June 25 he was asked by the manager of the store, Mr L. J. Broad, whether he had paid for a meal which he had eaten earlier that day. He said he had replied that he had intended to pay when he passed the checkouts at the end of the day.

Mr Broad had then asked if Mr Chamberlain had paid for a meal he had eaten two days previously, and Mr Chamberlain said he had, although a check with other staff and tape from the cash registers had not shown evidence of this.

Mr Chamberlain said he was then dismissed, and given holiday pay and an extra week’s pay in lieu of notice. He told the Court that the police were called to the supermarket on the afternoon he was dismissed, but that they said no offence had been committed.

Mrs K. Rewhui, a checkout operator at the store, said staff often paid for meals at any time of the day. This was accepted, normal practice, she said.

Mr Broad said he had been told that all staff members were aware that they had to pay for meals before they were eaten. He believed that Mr Chamber-

lain had not paid for the earlier meal, and had not paid for the last meal before it was eaten. “I didn’t believe he was intending to pay for it,” Mr Broad said. Evidence was given by two other staff members that all staff were supposed to pay for meals when the food was ordered. A list of staff rales was displayed in the staff room, they said. Mr McPhail said that Mr Chamberlain’s dismissal had been justified as he had acted dishonestly in not paying for one meal, and broken a staff rale by not paying for the other at the correct time. Mr Broad had been entitled to assume that Mr Chamberlain had not intended to pay for the second meal and to dismiss

him. Mr McPhail said. Mr Couch said that Mr Broad had come to a conclusion about Mr Chamberlain’s actions very quickly. Although the staff had been warned about security in the store, this had not been in the context of the system used by staff to pay for meals, he said.

He described Mr Chamberlain as “a keen young man in his first job,” who had not been aware of a rule governing payment for meals. Mr Couch said evidence presented to the Court had suggested that there had been a “very informal” system practised by the staff who purchased meals at the supermarket. Mr Chamberlain had simply followed their example, and his actions had not justified his dismissal, he said.