'Extraordinarily heartless': Store sacks chef with cancer for taking sick leave   :(


May 21, 2019
WA Today


A Sydney wholefoods store has been criticised by the Fair Work Commission for its "extraordinarily heartless" treatment of a chef it dismissed after he was absent for three days for cancer treatment.

Urban Orchard Food in Sydney's Circular Quay gave chef Chanintorn Siri three days sick leave when he was admitted to hospital with severe stomach pain related to his pancreatic cancer, but phoned to summarily dismiss him two days later, according to a commission judgment released on Tuesday.


A chef at a Sydney wholefoods store was summarily dismissed.

The judgment said Urban Orchard's owner Gabrielle Levette had told Mr Siri he was an unreliable employee and that she had offered his job to another cook.

She argued Urban Orchard had complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code because it had "reasonable grounds" to believe Mr Siri engaged in ongoing conduct of fraudulently completing his timesheet.


Ms Levette complained Mr Siri had closed the store too early on one occasion, took regular sick leave for no reason and often started late.

However in the decision published on Tuesday the commission found Mr Siri had been unfairly dismissed.

    Extraordinarily heartless disregard for the personal circumstances of another human being who was suffering from pancreatic cancer.
   

"Although the applicant may have exhibited some level of what might be described as less than perfect work performance, conduct and capacity, these were not matters that jeopardised the ongoing employment," Commissioner Ian Cambridge said in the judgment. "The employer acted with callous and undue haste when it engaged a replacement employee."

Commissioner Cambridge said dismissing Mr Siri over the telephone was "plainly unjust, manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, and in this case, unconscionably insensitive".

"This unnecessarily harsh approach was compounded by the extraordinarily heartless disregard for the personal circumstances of another human being who was suffering from pancreatic cancer."


Mr Siri had worked at Urban Orchard for just over two years and earned about $1000 a week, Commissioner Cambridge set compensation at $26,000, before reducing it by 20 per cent to factor in the "impact on the viability" of the business and deducting a further 10 per cent to allow for the likelihood of Mr Siri being absent on unpaid personal leave for a period after his dismissal.

Commissioner Cambridge ordered Urban Orchard to pay Mr Siri total compensation of $18,200.

Ms Levette told The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald she was very disappointed with the outcome and denied knowing about the chef's cancer.

"He imposed a judgment that will probably force us to liquidate our company and place 10 people out of work. The commissioner just paid no heed to how difficult it is to run a small business," she said.

Ms Levette said Urban Orchard would appeal the finding.

Lawyer Quang Nguyen represented Mr Siri and said the dismissal was not justified.

"Employers as a general principal under law are not entitled to dismiss summarily an employee on the spot to concoct a story to justify it," he said. "Summary dismissal is only allowed in exceptional circumstances such as dishonesty."

I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too..

to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:(

cods wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:06am:

I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:(

It's my belief that if you own the business, you call the shots

The business isn't being run for the benefit of employees, contrary to the beliefs of some

It's the owner who puts up the money, takes the risks.  And it's the owner who decides what's best for his business

According to this report, the owner should recognise that his rights are secondary or lower to those of the employee

in effect, the business is being expected to operate like an arm of the welfare industry

but, the owner didn't play his cards anywhere near smart enough

Should be an interesting work environment now at the restaurant

I dont agree someone with established health issues   should be sacked... sorry.... we all get sick   life is precarious enough   without fearing being sick.

Small businesses are mostly marginal and cannot afford such extra costs as paying a person on extended sick leave such a long leave for cancer treatment and hiring and paying another employee to perform the duties of the sick person.

Its time for an extended-sick-leave insurance scheme to be implemented like workers compensation with the payments being handled by Centrelink.

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:25am:

Small businesses are mostly marginal and cannot afford such extra costs as paying a person on extended sick leave such a long leave for cancer treatment and hiring and paying another employee to perform the duties of the sick person. Its time for an extended-sick-leave insurance scheme to be implemented like workers compensation with the payments being handled by Centrelink.

what have other small business been doing all this time??? he wouldnt be the first employee to fall to this disease would he?... and we would have heard of mass sackings while on sick leave...

sorry this is Un Australian.its not good enough

cods wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:22am:

I dont agree someone with established health issues   should be sacked... sorry.... we all get sick   life is precarious enough   without fearing being sick.

The business isn't a charity

The business has to turn a profit or it won't exist

An employee with a serious health condition is not an asset to the business, cannot offer reliability.  This places the owner under pressure to have a replacement on hand. Which isn't practical. No chef is going to hang around, unpaid, waiting for the phone call to fill in at a moment's notice.  So the owner would have to rely on temp appointments in the event the seriously ill employee has another sick call.  In the event the ill employee claims he needs another three/four/ten days off work, and in the event the owner cannot arrange an emergency temp worker, the business may be required to close.  That means loss of clientele and word would get around that businessX is 'always closed so let's book elsewhere to be sure'.  And to the question, 'What's going on with them -- why are they closing mid-week again', the response might be, 'Oh, their chef has cancer'.  Not a winning strategy for an eating establishment

however, the business owner must still pay the rent.  The business owner may have borrowed heavily or mortgaged their home for that business.  The business owner's own life, family, future, etc. is on the line every day in the volatile eating establishment industry. So huge stress placed on the business owner

Why would anyone put their own life and future on the line (and the future of members of their family) only to be at the mercy of employees?  It's why so many businesses close

unfortunately and maybe because of the cost, the business owner didn't seek legal advice and winged it, with the result being they are now held to ransom by an employee

if the business owner wants to sack someone in the future (that's if they still have a viable business) they'd be advised to seek legal advice on how to do so without blowback

PZ547 wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:35am:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:22am: I dont agree someone with established health issues   should be sacked... sorry.... we all get sick   life is precarious enough   without fearing being sick. The business isn't a charity The business has to turn a profit or it won't exist An employee with a serious health condition is not an asset to the business, cannot offer reliability.  This places the owner under pressure to have a replacement on hand. Which isn't practical. No chef is going to hang around, unpaid, waiting for the phone call to fill in at a moment's notice.  So the owner would have to rely on temp appointments in the event the seriously ill employee has another sick call.  In the event the ill employee claims he needs another three/four/ten days off work, and in the event the owner cannot arrange an emergency temp worker, the business may be required to close.  That means loss of clientele and word would get around that businessX is 'always closed so let's book elsewhere to be sure'.  And to the question, 'What's going on with them -- why are they closing mid-week again', the response might be, 'Oh, their chef has cancer'.  Not a winning strategy for an eating establishment however, the business owner must still pay the rent.  The business owner may have borrowed heavily or mortgaged their home for that business.  The business owner's own life, family, future, etc. is on the line every day in the volatile eating establishment industry. So huge stress placed on the business owner Why would anyone put their own life and future on the line (and the future of members of their family) only to be at the mercy of employees?  It's why so many businesses close unfortunately and maybe because of the cost, the business owner didn't seek legal advice and winged it, with the result being they are now held to ransom by an employee if the business owner wants to sack someone in the future (that's if they still have a viable business) they'd be advised to seek legal advice on how to do so without blowback

He hired the guy and knew he had cancer

Spot

cods wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:06am:

I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:(

That business is probably run by an LNP supporter. That's the sort of thing they would do :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 12:12pm:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:06am: I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:( That business is probably run by an LNP supporter. That's the sort of thing they would do :(

Juliar's restaurant?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 10:26am:

PZ547 wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:35am: cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:22am: I dont agree someone with established health issues   should be sacked... sorry.... we all get sick   life is precarious enough   without fearing being sick. The business isn't a charity The business has to turn a profit or it won't exist An employee with a serious health condition is not an asset to the business, cannot offer reliability.  This places the owner under pressure to have a replacement on hand. Which isn't practical. No chef is going to hang around, unpaid, waiting for the phone call to fill in at a moment's notice.  So the owner would have to rely on temp appointments in the event the seriously ill employee has another sick call.  In the event the ill employee claims he needs another three/four/ten days off work, and in the event the owner cannot arrange an emergency temp worker, the business may be required to close.  That means loss of clientele and word would get around that businessX is 'always closed so let's book elsewhere to be sure'.  And to the question, 'What's going on with them -- why are they closing mid-week again', the response might be, 'Oh, their chef has cancer'.  Not a winning strategy for an eating establishment however, the business owner must still pay the rent.  The business owner may have borrowed heavily or mortgaged their home for that business.  The business owner's own life, family, future, etc. is on the line every day in the volatile eating establishment industry. So huge stress placed on the business owner Why would anyone put their own life and future on the line (and the future of members of their family) only to be at the mercy of employees?  It's why so many businesses close unfortunately and maybe because of the cost, the business owner didn't seek legal advice and winged it, with the result being they are now held to ransom by an employee if the business owner wants to sack someone in the future (that's if they still have a viable business) they'd be advised to seek legal advice on how to do so without blowback He hired the guy and knew he had cancer Spot

where does it say that?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 12:12pm:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:06am: I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:( That business is probably run by an LNP supporter. That's the sort of thing they would do :(

its the sort of thing a bitter old coot like you would say.

whiteknight wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 7:46am:

Urban Orchard's owner Gabrielle Levette

muslim?

Regular sickies.
Closing the doors early and billing the timesheet late.
Can't get to work on time.
Sounds like Karma got him.
Definitely not a good employee by the sounds of it. Good employees don't get sacked for 3 days off.

I can see where the employer went wrong.
The employee has to be written up when they are not complying with company policy.

Im not buying into this bullshit,, More to this than the opening post, This is a f@rkin union beat up

BigP wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 4:42pm:

Im not buying into this bullshit,, More to this than the opening post, This is a f@rkin union beat up

Is your bullshit depository full?

PZ547 wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:14am:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:06am: I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:( It's my belief that if you own the business, you call the shots The business isn't being run for the benefit of employees, contrary to the beliefs of some It's the owner who puts up the money, takes the risks.  And it's the owner who decides what's best for his business According to this report, the owner should recognise that his rights are secondary or lower to those of the employee in effect, the business is being expected to operate like an arm of the welfare industry but, the owner didn't play his cards anywhere near smart enough Should be an interesting work environment now at the restaurant

Totally disagree..... there is a great responsibility when someone decides to employ someone.

They are not buying a slave, it's not ownership, it's a partnership.

If you can't afford a decision going against you..... don't do the wrong thing by having the sort of callous attitude displayed here.

My suggestion to people like this is don't employ anyone..... do it all yourself.

And I hope you appreciate yourself in the same manner you treated this employee.

There's no excuse for being a TNUC of a boss just because it's "your business".

Captain Caveman wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 4:02pm:

Regular sickies. Closing the doors early and billing the timesheet late. Can't get to work on time. Sounds like Karma got him. Definitely not a good employee by the sounds of it. Good employees don't get sacked for 3 days off. I can see where the employer went wrong. The employee has to be written up when they are not complying with company policy.

Sounds like he's been getting more ill as his cancer progressed to me.

That's why he did what he did.

You heartless bastard.

Theses excuses seem to have been made up by the employer after the fact as an arse coving excuse.

And if they can't afford the decision ... how can they afford to appeal the decision?

Sounds like bs to me.

PZ547 wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:14am:

cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:06am: I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:( It's my belief that if you own the business, you call the shots The business isn't being run for the benefit of employees, contrary to the beliefs of some It's the owner who puts up the money, takes the risks.  And it's the owner who decides what's best for his business According to this report, the owner should recognise that his rights are secondary or lower to those of the employee in effect, the business is being expected to operate like an arm of the welfare industry but, the owner didn't play his cards anywhere near smart enough Should be an interesting work environment now at the restaurant

It's my belief that if you own the business, you call the shots within the rules.

Laugh till you cry wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 12:14pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 12:12pm: cods wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:06am: I wonder sometimes what this world is coming too.. to sack someone on sick leave is the pitts.. >:( That business is probably run by an LNP supporter. That's the sort of thing they would do :( Juliar's restaurant?

You could be on to something there....

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 3:35pm:

whiteknight wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:46am: Urban Orchard's owner Gabrielle Levette muslim?

Sounds like a MEaster....

Gnads wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 6:24pm:

Captain Caveman wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 4:02pm: Regular sickies. Closing the doors early and billing the timesheet late. Can't get to work on time. Sounds like Karma got him. Definitely not a good employee by the sounds of it. Good employees don't get sacked for 3 days off. I can see where the employer went wrong. The employee has to be written up when they are not complying with company policy. Sounds like he's been getting more ill as his cancer progressed to me. That's why he did what he did. You heartless bastard. Theses excuses seem to have been made up by the employer after the fact as an arse coving excuse. And if they can't afford the decision ... how can they afford to appeal the decision? Sounds like bs to me.

Correct.
There's more to this than the OP story.

If that employer knew about the cancer to start with then fair enough, throw the book at them. If not....well.
The employer claims they didn't know. Bullshyte??? Maybe. I wasn't there so I can only assume.


Cancer treatment is not like a cold or flu. He would have records and paperwork to confirm his treatments. I wonder why he never disclosed it to the employer?  That rings alarm bells for me if it is true.
Either way...he got his compensation.

$18,000 out of a twice reduced amount i.e. $26,000.

He'll be able to live long and happy up til his death on that. ;D

Wonder what his medical expenses are?