Read the below case study and address the assignment topic that follows:

Question

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
1. In Labour legislation. Fairness in dismissals is determined by procedural and substantive fairness . Considering the above case scenario. Critically argue the unfairness of Sally’s dismissal by referring to applicable labour legislation
Include the following
Introduction and background
Address the assignment Topic with sub headings
Conclusion

In 2 pages

Answer 1

Unfair Dismissal Case Study of Sally at Company X

Introduction and Background

In modern employment practices, dismissals must adhere to principles of fairness, both in procedure and substance. The case of Sally, a permanent cashier at Company X, serves as a textbook example of potential wrongful termination, illustrating failures in both procedural and substantive fairness. Sally, intending to buy a discounted product, put a 2-litre ice cream in the lunchroom fridge and was subsequently accused of theft without due process. This case warrants a thorough examination of the relevant labour legislation regarding fairness in workplace dismissals.

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness, often referred to as "due process," requires that employees are given a fair chance to defend themselves before any disciplinary action is taken. In Sally's case, the manager did not conduct any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct. Key aspects of procedural fairness that were overlooked include:

1. Lack of Investigation: Before branding Sally as a thief, the manager should have investigated the situation to understand her intentions. Investigative procedures should include gathering all relevant facts, allowing the accused employee to present their side of the story, and exploring alternative explanations.

2. No Disciplinary Hearing: Company X failed to provide Sally with an opportunity for a disciplinary hearing, which is typically required to assess the validity of any allegations made against an employee. Labour legislation often stipulates that employees must be given the chance to respond to allegations before any punitive measures are enforced. Sally was not given the opportunity to explain her actions or provide context, violating this fundamental principle.

3. Immediate Termination: Dismissing an employee without proper process undermines the trust and workplace stability necessary for a healthy work environment. Employers are generally required to follow a prescribed disciplinary process, which typically includes verbal or written warnings prior to termination for minor offenses. The immediate termination of Sally without progression through these steps further illustrates a failure of procedural fairness.

Substantive Fairness

Substantive fairness pertains to the reasonableness of the grounds for dismissal. A dismissal can be considered substantively unfair if there is no sufficient basis for the termination. In Sally's case, several points raise concerns regarding the substantive fairness of her dismissal:

1. Intention vs. Action: While Sally put the ice cream aside, her intention was to purchase it. The absence of a purchase slip does not equate to theft; rather, it indicates an intention to buy. Company policy on employees setting aside items should have been taken into account, particularly considering the shop's busy clearance sale.

2. Proportionality: The response from the manager was disproportionate to the alleged offense. Dismissal is an extreme measure and should only be employed in instances of serious misconduct. If the offense is minor or could be remedied through other means (e.g., a warning), termination is generally not justifiable. In this case, a reprimand or suspension would have been a more appropriate response.

3. Company Policy Awareness: Although Sally was aware of the company policy regarding setting items aside, the application of such policies must be tempered with reasonableness. Given the extraordinary circumstances of a clearance sale, employees should be allowed some leeway in their actions, provided they are operating in good faith.

Conclusion

The dismissal of Sally from Company X appears to be fundamentally unfair, as it significantly violates both procedural and substantive fairness principles outlined in labour legislation. By failing to conduct an appropriate investigation, neglecting to hold a disciplinary hearing, and resorting to immediate termination for an act that was arguably well-intentioned, Company X has acted outside the bounds of fair employment practices. Upholding the rights of employees through fair procedures and reasonable grounds for dismissal is not only a legal requirement but also essential for maintaining trust and morale in the workplace. It is crucial for organizations to train management on these principles to avoid similar situations in the future and ensure a just work environment for all employees.