Impact of the size of the Respondent on procedures followed : Qantas is a large business so this was not a factor .
Absence of a dedicated Human Resources Management Specialist or expertise on procedures Followed : It follows that this was not a factor .
Any other matter that the FWC considers relevant :
Section 387 ( h ) allows the Fair Work Commission to consider any other matters it considers relevant . To “ ensure that a ‘ fair go all round ’ is accorded to both the employer and the employee concerned ”.
There were a number of factors which the Applicant relied on to support his argument that his dismissal was disproportionate to the crime committed . These included :
• His 28 years of unblemished service for Qantas as a long-haul flight attendant .
• The small value of the items stolen .
• The Applicant ’ s age of 50 meant it would be difficult to get another job , certainly as a flight attendant .
IQ 24
• Although he gave an incorrect explanation , he did correct it .
• He had a number of medical and family issues prior to the incident .
The Deputy President took these matters into account and together lead him to the view that the dismissal was harsh , and given the factors noted above , it would have been appropriate for Qantas to implement a penalty lesser than dismissal .
The Deputy President found that the dismissal was not unreasonable with nothing in the process adopted by the Respondent making it unjust . However , because of the factors he have considered pursuant to s . 387 ( h ) ‘ Other relevant matters he found the dismissal to be both harsh and unfair .
Remedy — compensation The Deputy President decided ( although the value of the goods stolen was small ) he did not think reinstatement was appropriate in this case and accepted Qantas ’ s argument that the relationship of trust has broken down and cannot be repaired . It is important that Flight Attendants are able to be trusted with Qantas property . The fact that the Applicant changed his story is a crucial factor here . Reinstatement may be seen to condone theft in some way .
The Commission found that the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed and that reinstatement is not appropriate in all the circumstances . The Deputy President was satisfied that an order for compensation should be made .
Over All Comment
Deputy President Lawrence was correct in applying well established industrial relations principles and applied logic in the circumstances of this case , however for the passing observer , including media reports of this matter for an employee caught red handed stealing from his employer rewarded compensation may be hard to comprehend . Deputy President Lawrence is an experienced and highly regarded member of the Tribunal and would suggest that his decision is unlikely to be appealed . The only matter that I would question is how the Commissioner arrived at the level of compensation 26 weeks of the applicant ’ s actual salary .
By Peter Cooper Senior Industrial Relations Specialist