CCTV camera captures duo at Woolworths store
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a Woolworths worker who allegedly stole items from the store he was working for, with the help of his mother.
In its defence, the employer argued that the worker was dismissed for theft, constituting serious misconduct. Hence, no unfair dismissal happened.
Caught in the act
Before his dismissal, the worker was a part-time store team member between 6 June 2008 and 31 October 2022.
The store was monitored at all times by CCTV camera surveillance, and behind the service desk of the store, there was a security lock-up or storage room that was inaccessible to the public.
“The Storage Room is used for the purposes of storing valuable retail stock that necessitates the involvement of a staff member to obtain an item from the Storage Room upon a request from a customer,” the FWC stated.
On 8 October 2022, it was apparent in the footage that the worker entered the store’s storage room despite no customer inquiry.
The worker then removed a hard drive from the shelf, placed it in the cardboard box, and took the box out of the storage room.
He then proceeded to walk to a shopping aisle where his mother was waiting with a trolley. The footage showed the worker turning the box on the trolley’s side, apparently emptying the contents of the box, including the hard drive, directly into his mother’s trolley.
It was only when a customer inquired as to the availability of the hard drive that it was discovered it was missing from the storage room, given that the store only had one hard drive that was in stock at that time.
Consequently, the employer spoke with the worker and advised the latter that he wanted to speak with him the following day regarding the removal/missing stock from the store.
On the same day, it was caught on the CCTV footage that the worker’s mother entered the store wearing a hat and mask and later scanned the hard drive at a price scanner.
The mother was also seen in the footage walking to the front of the store checkout and sales register, where she produced and paid for the hard drive and a LEGO piece.
The following day, when the worker attended a meeting and was asked about the missing hard drive, he accepted that he had taken it from the storage room.
However, he denied stealing the hard drive from the store and said that he simply hid it in the store’s pet aisle and neglected to retrieve it.
“The [worker’s] Mother interjected during the meeting and advised that she had, in fact, retrieved the Hard Drive from its hiding place (in the pet aisle) the day before (Friday, 14 October 2022) and purchased it for the [worker] as a surprise Christmas present,” the FWC stated.
Both the employer and the worker had a series of correspondence regarding the incident; however, the employer found the worker’s explanation implausible and illogical.
Hence, the employer dismissed the worker as his behaviour was unacceptable and considered a breach of the company’s code of conduct.
FWC’s decision
Ultimately, the Commission found that the worker, along with his mother, engaged in the theft of the hard drive. Hence, the worker’s dismissal was fair, just, and reasonable.
The FWC noted that the evidence put forward by the worker and his mother simply did not add up and was false to the extent that it sought to justify the worker’s failure to purchase the hard drive.
It further said that the hard drive was never hidden under pet beds in the pet aisle. Rather, the hard drive was hidden from the box carried by the worker, transferred to the trolley, and stolen from the store.
“The [worker] and his mother’s evidence as to their failure to purchase the Hard Drive on 8 and/or 9 October 2022 is simply a continuation of their false and misleading narrative, in yet a further and ongoing attempt to cover up their actual conduct and behaviour in secretly (or so they thought) removing the Hard Drive from the Store,” the FWC stated.
Meanwhile, concerning the alleged theft of the LEGO product, the Commission concurred with the employer that the worker and his mother’s evidence surrounding the alleged theft of the LEGO was not to be believed.
