Pharmacy Assistant Awarded $24,000 After Unfair Dismissal Over Sweets Allegation
A pharmacy assistant who was dismissed after being accused of stealing a small selection of confectionery items has successfully won her unfair dismissal case, receiving a substantial compensation award of $24,000. The Fair Work Commission ruled that the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the summary dismissal.
Accusation and Immediate Termination
Cheryl Sazdanoff, a long-serving employee at the Docs John Hunter Hospital Pharmacy in Newcastle since 2011, faced abrupt allegations of theft during a shift in September last year. Business owner Aleksandar Gavriloski confronted her, stating, 'We've caught you stealing.' The accusations centered on four specific incidents where Ms Sazdanoff was said to have taken confectionery without payment, including a Byron Bay cookie, two chocolate hearts, a rainbow Nerd rope, and a packet of Curly Wurly Squirlies.
Despite the gravity of the claims, the evidence presented was notably flawed. Mr Gavriloski made only a cursory attempt to show Ms Sazdanoff CCTV footage, rushing through partial clips that repeatedly froze and failed to load properly. Shocked by the accusation, Ms Sazdanoff immediately paid for the items in question. However, she was instructed to attend a disciplinary meeting the following day to discuss the allegations of consuming stock without payment.
Disciplinary Meeting and Dismissal
At the meeting, Ms Sazdanoff reported feeling overwhelmed, distressed, and intimidated, which hindered her ability to explain her position effectively. Mr Gavriloski questioned whether she could provide receipts for the confectionery she allegedly took. Without allowing a proper defense, he handed her a termination letter, citing serious misconduct due to theft as grounds for immediate dismissal.
Ms Sazdanoff firmly denies engaging in theft or any conduct warranting summary dismissal. She explained that it was common practice for staff to eat food items during shifts and pay for them afterward, if not before. On two occasions, she shared confectionery with colleagues, incorrectly assuming they would handle payment.
Fair Work Commission Investigation
Commissioner Damian Sloan conducted a thorough review of the case, examining the CCTV footage and witness testimonies. He found that Ms Sazdanoff made no attempt to 'disguise or conceal' her actions. The footage showed she had paid for the cookie, and her consumption of other items did not demonstrate an intent to steal.
'The absence of receipts or other proof of payment for the items is not sufficient to establish an intention to steal,' Commissioner Sloan stated. 'I am not satisfied on the evidence that DPL has established that Ms Sazdanoff engaged in the theft which was the basis for her summary dismissal.'
Inconsistent Treatment and Compensation Award
The investigation revealed that Ms Sazdanoff was not the only employee consuming stock at work. Mr Gavriloski admitted that another employee was dismissed around the same time, while almost all other staff received first and final warnings, with outcomes depending on the frequency of alleged thefts.
Commissioner Sloan noted, 'Given my findings above, DPL treated Ms Sazdanoff more harshly than her co-workers, without apparent justification.' He determined that if not dismissed, she would have remained employed for at least another year. Consequently, he ordered DPL to pay Ms Sazdanoff $23,960 in compensation plus superannuation, totaling approximately $24,000.
Broader Implications for Workplace Practices
This case highlights critical issues in workplace disciplinary procedures, particularly regarding evidence standards and fair treatment. Employers must ensure allegations are substantiated with clear proof before proceeding to dismissal, especially in cases involving long-serving employees like Ms Sazdanoff, who was a respected staff member with her 50th birthday celebrated on the pharmacy's social media pages.
The ruling underscores the importance of consistent application of policies and the need for thorough investigations to avoid unfair dismissals that can lead to significant financial and reputational consequences for businesses.
