Dishonesty and theft – of even the smallest
items – can constitute reasonable grounds
for dismissal. This lesson was learned the hard
way by Mr Petrosillo, when Coles dismissed
him for eating a Snickers bar, which was given
to him by another employee, in the distribu
tion centre at which Mr Petrosillo worked.
After experiencing losses of about
$110,000 from its distribution centre, Coles
had issued a Check Seal Policy and Food and
Drink Policy. Under these policies all food and
grocery items belonging to an employee had
to have a check seal, to distinguish them from
stock items. In addition, all employees were
required to read and sign the Code of Con
duct, which required employees to be “open,
honest and trustworthy”.
Mr Petrosillo was interviewed in relation
to the contravention and was told of the
requirement to be open and honest in his an
swers, otherwise it could result in the termi
nation of his employment. Mr Petrosillo was
then suspended on full pay. He was inter
viewed again a week later and, after consid
ering his responses, he was dismissed.
Under cross-examination in Tony Pet
rosillo V Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd
[2009] AIRC 3, Mr Petrosillo: confirmed he
was aware of the relevant policies and that
Coles regularly enforced them; and was eva
sive in his answers, leading SDP Cartwright
to conclude that he was aware that the
snickers bar did not have a check seal on
it and that it was likely it had been stolen.
As such SDP Cartwright found
Mr Petrosillo’s dismissal was fair and rea
sonable, despite his unblemished record of
service.
HR tips: This case demonstrates the im
portance of: having appropriate workplace
policies, which are made known to all em
ployees and are enforced; warning employ
ees of the consequences of dishonesty; and
having strong evidence of serious miscon
duct before dismissal
By Kelly Godfrey, senior associate, Australian Business Lawyers. kelly.godfrey@ablawyers.com.au
