Preston Russell Law - Legal Services for Southern People

The 'Cockroach Case'

Saturday, August 21, 2010 by Mary-Jane Thomas, partner category Work to Rule

Employers are able to tell employees to do things as long as they are lawful and reasonable. If an employee fails to follow the instruction this can, as long as the process followed is reasonable, result in lawful dismissal.

To illustrate this please read with baited breath the saga of the cockroach case.
 
Mr F was an employee of Purity Foods which made pies (that is probably irrelevant to this case but nonetheless quite an interesting fact if you are a pie eater).

The Production Manager at the pie factory was advised by a cleaner that Mr F was storing cockroaches in his locker (the decision does not say how the cleaner found out). Mr F admitted this. His reason for collecting the cockroaches was as evidence for his partner’s personal grievance case which she was bringing against the company after she had received a warning. As it turns out his partner’s warning had nothing to do with cockroaches, rather she was in breach of company rules by hosing down a dry area that had a risk of electrocution. 

The company explained to Mr F that the storage of dead insects was a violation of the company’s health and safety policy and also a health risk to other workers and the public. It is not clear how the cockroaches ended up dead (any watcher of the Discovery channel knows that in the event of nuclear war cockroaches will be the only survivors). Seemingly he caught them alive and stored them in rubber gloves in this locker – I thought they would survive this so clearly the Discovery Chanel has been lying to us.  Back to the story. He was asked to dispose of the insects immediately, however he refused to do so. He was asked one more time to remove the insects from his locker with the company stating that there would be serious repercussions if he failed to adhere to this instruction. Again Mr F refused to remove the cockroaches from his locker.

The employer organised a disciplinary meeting with Mr F. He attended this with a support person. At the meeting Mr F explained that his lawyer had told him to collect the cockroaches. He had been collecting them for two weeks.   Mr F explained that when he was asked to throw the cockroaches out he refused to do so because he thought what he was doing was right. Mr F said that if he was again asked to remove the cockroaches he would continue to refuse the request. He also refused to apologise to his employer.
 
At the end of the meeting Mr F was advised that he would remain stood down from his duties on full pay pending a decision regarding the outcome of the meeting.
 
Mr F was asked to attend a follow up disciplinary meeting two days later. He did not show up and instead appeared on television that night alleging a cockroach problem at the company. Mr F was dismissed for failure to follow a lawful and reasonable instruction – that is to remove the cockroaches.
 
The Employment Relations Authority had to consider whether the employer’s actions in dismissing Mr F were what a fair and reasonable employer would do in all the circumstances.
 
The ERA was satisfied that the employer was very clear that Mr F was to remove the cockroaches from his locker at the workplace because they were a health and safety risk and it was not appropriate to have cockroaches stored particularly in a food processing workplace.
 
Mr F disobeyed the instruction twice, was given the opportunity to rectify the situation but was clear that he would repeat his behaviour. The ERA held that the dismissal was fair and reasonable.