$2,400 for Hurt and Suffering

[Ixion]

Very fair and I agree. However IMHO the law is weighted in favour of the employee. That is as it should be - a worker shouldn't lose his job too easily.

But the fair procedures regime means that even in egregious cases - such as this wanker we're talking about - the employer gets slammed for acting the way 99% of the community would also act.

FFS, using the fuel card is theft. The swatiskas are a clear breach of the human rights act and racially discriminatory. What reasonable employee could possibly expect to keep his job if caught?

Only theft if there is intent to permanently deprive. As I heard it, the guy found himself out of gas and out of money. Wanted to put $5 on the card and claimed he would have reimbursed it. Not condoning that , but (a) that's not theft if there is a genuine intention to reimburse. (b) we don't know if the boss had allowed such expediencies in the past. I have worked in many jobs where such an action would have been condoned - . Perhaps the guy may have genuinely thought that the boss would not object ("Hey boss, I got stuck without petrol last night, so in an emergency I stuck $5 on the company card - here's the five bucks" ) which is what I said about making sure that the full situation is considered.

It is unlikely that the boss viewed it as theft since if he had he would have sacked the guy then and there. The petrol card only seems to have been brought up as an afterthought once the later dismissal was challenged. Which is one of the things the employment court said. "If you are saying that one of the reasons that you sacked him was for using the fuel card, why did you not lay it on the line to him at the time? Why wait till later then dredge it up?"

As to the swastikas breaching the Human Rights Act? Not so IMHO, it is only a breach if intended to be offensive (and maybe not even then). There is no evidence that the guy intended the house owners to see them nor that he knew they would be especially offensive to them

If the mere exhibition of a swastika is a breach of the law, then a hell of a lot of Harley riders are in trouble.

(Incidentally, the swastika issue could only be of relevance because they were drawn on the employers material on a work site. A worker is entitled to draw swastikas to his hearts content , as far as employment law is concerned, outside the work environment. Like I said, a worker cannot be sacked - and should not be able to be- for having opinions that differ from the bosses. Else, where next? Sacked because the boss votes National and the worker votes Labour, maybe? Or, in a government job, the reverse)

[Winston001]

Yes Ixion, this discussion illustrates the dangers of arguing on the basis of a news report for the facts. We need to see the Judge's decision. I appreciate that there could be an innocent explanation for the fuel card but the Herald doesn't provide it.

However there cannot be an innocent explanation for the swastika and grafitti. It was written on the property of a third party - the house belongs to the owner, not the employer. This isn't a matter of free speech. The house owner is entitled to trust and confidence when asking the employer to work on the owners property. If an employee breaches that trust then the employer has a problem with the house owner.

Just as a matter of interest, in the United States, employers hold bonds (essentially insurance) to protect houseowners from employee wrongs committed while on the premises. So there is a recognition that an employer has a real liability to property owners for his employees actions.

[Patrick]

[QUOTE=Winston001]Yes Ixion, this discussion illustrates the dangers of arguing on the basis of a news report for the facts....

However there cannot be an innocent explanation for the swastika and grafitti. It was written on the property of a third party - the house belongs to the owner, not the employer. This isn't a matter of free speech. The house owner is entitled to trust and confidence when asking the employer to work on the owners property. If an employee breaches that trust then the employer has a problem with the house owner.
QUOTE]

But Ixion, isn't that what KB is all about??? Taking off on what was in the Harold as if it is gospel? Most anti cop ones begin exactly like that....

Agree with Winston here too... the swastika thing was clearly to offend the Jew... why else would he do it? Bikies only use them coz they can't write

[idb]

Two discussions have developed on this thread - whether the guy should have been compensated or not and the pros & cons of the employee/employer relationship.

[Patrick]

Two discussions have developed on this thread - whether the guy should have been compensated or not and the pros & cons of the employee/employer relationship.

Which is what makes this place an interesting read...

[Lou Girardin]

That's the problem with this discussion Lou.
Why do we have to be on one side or the other?

Because it's no fun arguing with someone who agrees with you.

[idb]

Because it's no fun arguing with someone who agrees with you.

What I meant was, why does one have to be pro-worker or pro-employer (or even anti-worker or anti-employer)?
You can still have an opinion without an entrenched attitude towards or against one group or the other.

[Winston001]

What I meant was, why does one have to be pro-worker or pro-employer (or even anti-worker or anti-employer)?
You can still have an opinion without an entrenched attitude towards or against one group or the other.

Why can't we all just get along. Feel the love.

Like WINJA's mum. ::