30 Jul 2015

Bakery burned over payslip row

7:08 pm on 30 July 2015

A baker fired after arguing with his bosses over his colleague seeing his payslip has won more than $7000 in lost pay and compensation.

Baker

Photo: 123RF.com

Employment Relations Authority member Rachel Larmer investigated the case and found Bakers Harvest unjustifiably dismissed Keith Kar.

Bakers Harvest claimed Mr Kar created problems for the business by showing his payslip to another employee, who was "very upset and agitated" that Mr Kar was paid more, Ms Larmer said in her finding.

It was problematic because the other employee was doing his own job as well as covering for Mr Kar and another employee, who were both on sick leave.

"(He) was therefore essential to the operation of the business. Bakers Harvest believes Mr Kar was trying to cause dissension and disharmony in the workplace," the finding said.

Bakers Harvest directors and shareholders Xiaotang Huang and Hongbin Zhu spoke to Mr Kar on their car's speakerphone and asked him about the incident, with Mr Huang asking why he had discussed his pay with the other man when he knew he was being paid more.

The men said Mr Huang told Mr Kar the other man had been a lot of help while Mr Kar was on sick leave, and Mr Huang praised the great job he had been doing.

They said Mr Kar - who claimed his colleague had grabbed his payslip from him - got impatient and angry at this and replied, 'Then give my job to Kevin, I am not going to do any work for you anymore' and hung up.

However, Mr Kar said he told them, "If Kevin can handle my job, don't call me while I am on sick leave to come back to work".

Mr Zhu and Mr Huang said they believed Mr Kar's comments meant he did not intend to return to work.

Six days later, Mr Kar found a large Bakers Harvest payment in his bank account and when he inquired what it was for, he was told it was his final pay.

He was given an unsigned letter, dated six days earlier but which he did not receive for a further two days, which stated he had breached confidentiality rules and "created ill feelings amongst staff".

"When we spoke to you by phone you showed no regret for such action you had taken and you then stated that you would like your job handed over to other staff and therefore you are now actually abandoning your position," it said.

"This letter is to advise you that your employment with Bakers [Harvest] is now formally terminated."

Ms Larmer found Bakers Harvest was unable to justify Mr Kar's dismissal and ordered it to pay him $4000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to his feelings, as well as $3186.40 in lost wages and holiday pay. She also awarded 7.5 percent interest to be paid on the outstanding $3186.40 until it is paid in full and a yet-to-be-determined contribution to Mr Kar's legal costs.

Are workplaces served by pay detail sharing?

Employment lawyer Alastair Espie said employers tended to want staff to keep their pay details to themselves so as not to create workplace disharmony.

"If one employee is earning considerably more than another employee, it's not a nice feeling for that other employee to find out that they may not be as valued, and naturally there's discontent that can arise from that," he said.

"So that seems to be perhaps where they're coming from."

Some people believed workplaces would be better served if employees knew what everyone else was earning, Mr Espie said.

"I guess that goes to issues about pay equality and your work being fairly remunerated and is your value being fairly recognised," he said.

"But it's really more a case, from what I can see, about an employer just not taking kindly to one employee talking about what he's getting and telling that other employee that he's getting more than him."

Service and Food Workers Union National Secretary John Ryall said people being paid varying rates for the same work was one of the biggest causes of workplace dissatisfaction.

The union advised employers that collective agreements and transparency of rates were good for both the workforce and the employer as it avoided secretive arrangements, which tended to undermine relationships.

"So we would say that the advice to employers is be very transparent about what people are being paid and why they're being paid those rates, to not encourage people into a climate of secrecy around their pay rates, which we think will be counter-productive in the longer term."

Mr Ryall also advised both employers and employees to follow the correct procedures around such things as discipline and termination.

"That stuff is not too difficult.

"It's just a matter of giving people a fair go, of making sure that if there's a problem, of putting the problem to people, listening to their explanation and making some assessment about whether this is a serious matter or something which is a misunderstanding."

People could quickly become unstuck if they did not follow correct and fair procedures, Mr Ryall said.