“In July 2015, a friend of the applicant attended the car park of the applicant’s workplace with the intention of discussing a rifle part with him,” sunshinecoastdaily.com.au reports. “Critically, the applicant used his security pass to give his friend access to the car park. Whilst there, the friend revealed she had brought her high powered rifle with her in the car. A member of the public witnessed the applicant and his friend with the rifle in the car park and reported the event to the police . . .
The police attended the car park and found the applicant and his friend with the unarmed rifle.
Although his friend was charged with an ammunition related offence, the police did not charge the applicant.
Following the incident, the applicant was stood down pending an investigation.
The company employing the unnamed admirer of the “high powered” rifle fired him. He appealed the decision to Queensland’s Fair Work Commission. The Commission ruled that he’d been wronged, as follows.
The employer’s fundamental reason to dismiss the applicant was the alleged misconduct of the applicant which involved him either, permitting (his friend) to enter the car park in the knowledge that she had the firearm in her car, or alternatively, allowing her entry to the car park without knowledge of the firearm, but then subsequently not acting with reasonable and timely concern for the circumstances. Neither of these formulations of the alleged misconduct, when properly considered, can be held to have involved a wilful and deliberate attack upon the employment relationship, such as would be necessary to justify a dismissal without notice, as opposed to dismissal with the requisite notice.
So, if the employer hadn’t waited a month before firing the employee for “serious misconduct,” the fired worker may have received a different judgement. Still, ch-ching: $8,616 in compensation.
Several U.S. states have laws “allowing” employees to stash a gat in their vehicle when it’s on their employer’s premises. I doubt those laws would cover an incident of this type, where a third party brings a gun onto the property for discussion/ogling. Should they?