Unofficial staff party shutdown by police

by |

Staff at a Melbourne department store took their Christmas party to a whole new level – they snuck into the shop after hours and held an illegal soiree.

It sounds more like the plot of an 80s teen movie, but yesterday morning police were called to Dimmeys in Swan Street Richmond, where more than 20 past and present staff were apparently hosting an unofficial party.

Dimmeys owner Doug Zapelli told News Limited that significant damage was caused to the shop and stock when a rowdy crowd "threw their own party that got out of hand".

The store is soon due to close, but windows were broken, stock was damaged and fake snow was sprayed throughout the store.

Zapelli said an employee with a key had let staff into the store after it closed on Saturday.

"We will certainly be firing the guy," he said.

Store manager Loulla Theodosi said a staff member told her yesterday the party had been planned days before.

A Victoria Police spokesman confirmed several people were arrested following the incident.

  • Will on 14/12/2012 2:56:45 PM

    Oh, c'mon..! Where's the "procedural fairness" being afforded to this guy...??? Surely some lawyer will pick up on the owner's comment and argue that he wasn't afforded an opportunity to explain his/her reasons to open the store and hold a party there....

  • Tony on 14/12/2012 4:54:38 PM

    Yes, the argument will be that the employer failed to have a clear policy in place which prohibitis non-approved parties on its premises out of hours and that the consequences of such behaviour should have been specified in the disciplinary policy. Indeed, these employees may also have a stress claim for being put in such a position!

  • Sean on 15/12/2012 1:00:02 AM

    Procedural fairness??? Are you kidding? What reason would be acceptable in your opinion Will?

  • Realist on 17/12/2012 10:21:24 AM

    The proof is in the pudding Will...

    Dimmeys doesn't sound like the big dept store chains that can afford procedural fairness in such circumstances!

    Seems as though the so called "employees" have intentional done this in spite of the owner/manager at the store.

  • Heidi on 29/12/2012 7:13:35 PM

    I agree Sean, My question is when do people have to take responsibility for their own actions. If these employees expect their employer to follow the letter of the law. Where was the 'procedural fairness' for want of another term - when these past and current employees were planning this without reference to the owner. And wouldn't you think that if they had damaged stock and premises - they would all be expecting something more than a quiet chat.

Human capital forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Name (required)
Comment (required)
By submitting, I agree to the Terms & Conditions