Main Assignment-Groups (4 members)

Question

Read the below case study and address the assignment topic that follows:
Sally is employed on a permanent basis with Company X as a cashier. She has worked there
for 2 years. Company X is a food and beverage company that sells to the local community.
Company X had a clearance sale and there was a special on their 2litre ice cream which was
selling out fast. Sally had intentions of buying a 2litre ice cream but because they were so
busy due to the clearance sale she had decided to put a 2litre ice cream aside for herself in
the lunch room fridge that she was going to buy before they closed the shop. This goes against
Company X policies which all employees are aware of. A manager of Company X visited the
lunch room and found the 2litre ice cream left in the fridge and asked whose it was. When
Sally indicated it is hers, the Manager asked for her purchase slip. Sally indicated she does
not have one as yet as she planned to pay for it before they closed. The manager became
very angry and said Sally wanted to steal the ice cream and is a thief. The manager asked her
to leave her cash register, pack her belongings and leave the premises immediately and not
return back to work again. She subsequently was fired without pay and no disciplinary hearing
was held.
Assignment Topic
In Labour Legislation, fairness in dismissals is determined by procedural and
substantive fairness. Considering the above case scenario, critically argue the fairness
OR unfairness of Sally’s dismissal by referring to applicable labour legislation.

Answer 1

In this case study, we analyze the dismissal of Sally, a cashier at Company X, through the lens of labor legislation, focusing on procedural and substantive fairness.

Substantive Fairness

Substantive fairness refers to whether the reasons for dismissal are justifiable and reasonable. In this case, the manager accused Sally of attempting to "steal" the ice cream by placing it aside for her own purchase without paying for it first. The following points address the substantive fairness of this dismissal:

1. Intent to Purchase: Sally intended to buy the ice cream before the store closed, which indicates that her actions were not driven by a desire to steal but rather to reserve an item for personal purchase. The absence of a purchase slip does not provide substantial grounds for labeling her as a thief since she had a legitimate intention to complete the transaction.

2. Policy Violation: While it is acknowledged that Sally did violate Company X's policy by putting the ice cream aside for herself, the severity of the claim against her needs evaluation. A policy violation does not inherently constitute grounds for immediate dismissal, especially if this was her first offense and if the infraction was based on reasonable circumstances (i.e., a busy sale period).

3. Nature of the Allegation: The manager’s reaction—calling Sally a thief—appears to be an excessive response to a minor policy breach. This casts doubt on the management's interpretation of fairness in applying disciplinary measures within the company.

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness concerns the processes undertaken leading to the dismissal decision. In this scenario, several procedural shortcomings can be identified:

1. Lack of Disciplinary Hearing: Sally was dismissed immediately without any investigation or disciplinary hearing. According to labor legislation in many jurisdictions, an employee must be given an opportunity to explain their side of the story before a dismissal is executed. The failure to conduct a hearing violates this essential principle of procedural fairness.

2. Immediate Termination: An immediate dismissal without any prior warnings or structured procedures is generally viewed as unfair, especially in light of the fact that Sally had been employed with Company X for two years without prior incidents. An employee should generally be given a chance to learn from their mistakes.

3. Opportunity for Appeal: There appears to be no opportunity for Sally to appeal the decision or seek redress following her dismissal. Fair labor practices typically ensure that employees can challenge disciplinary actions they perceive as unjust.

Conclusion

In summary, Sally's dismissal appears to be both substantively and procedurally unfair. Substantively, while there was a violation of company policy, the intent was not one of theft but of temporary reservation, which does not warrant immediate termination. Procedurally, the lack of a disciplinary hearing and the immediate nature of the dismissal violated principles of fairness expected in employment practices.

According to applicable labor legislation, such as the Fair Work Act (in jurisdictions that have similar regulations), fair dismissal procedures necessitate that both procedural and substantive fairness be adhered to. Thus, in this scenario, Sally's dismissal would likely be deemed unfair, allowing for potential legal repercussions against Company X for failing to follow proper labor protocols.