Earlier in the week a Dunedin Subway store fired Jackie Lang and had her charged with theft for sharing her free drink with an upset friend. The sacking is both unjustified and fails to comply with the procedural requirements of the ERA (or the ECA, for that matter). The theft charges are simply outrageous, not to mention excessive. In Dunedin, Young Labour are organising protests against the Sudway store; meanwhile Aucklander-at-large's Jeremy Greenbrook has organised an online campaign to boycott subway. So, I won't be eating there until they reinstate Ms Lang and withdraw the charges against her, and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. At the very least it will send a message to Subway on a national level that we expect them to be decent employers, not petty tyrants.
I'm happy to boycott Subway.
ReplyDeleteTheir food is nasty - plus I hate that business of having to answer 20 questions before getting my sarnie. Surely the point of getting takeout is that you pass the work of creating your food onto someone else?
There is a piece missing in this. It is almost certainly a previous diversion.
ReplyDeleteThe manager is an ass to be sure, but I think bloggers could have jumped the gun.
What evidence do you have for that Ruth? It's been stated clearly on Radio NZ and other places that her employment record is clean and she has never had a warning or other disciplinary for anything in the past.
ReplyDeleteRemember, there really are just some fuckwit employers out there who think they're feudal lords rather than employers with legal and ethical obligations.
Tane - ruth is talking about evidence of previous criminal offending, not evidence of problems at Subway.
ReplyDeleteShe's right that there is evidence of previous criminal offending - the lack of diversion in this case.
And the owners of the Subway in question have made it clear they had nothing to do with the decision to lay charges - they rang up the local cops to ask if what the person did was a crime (because if it was, they could fire her without a warning) and they were told it was and thus fired her. The cops then, on their own initiative, investigated and laid charges.
Diversion has to be accepted by the accused - it can't just be imposed. I've been offered diversion by the police before and turned it down because I knew they didn't have a leg to stand on. So I don't think the fact she hasn't taken diversion is a sign of previous offending. Indeed, we don't even know whether she's been offered diversion. It is, after all, discretionary.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly not proof of previous criminal offending, but it is evidence.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAnd the owners of the Subway in question have made it clear they had nothing to do with the decision to lay charges - they rang up the local cops to ask if what the person did was a crime (because if it was, they could fire her without a warning) and they were told it was and thus fired her. The cops then, on their own initiative, investigated and laid charges.
Where has that been made clear?
Subway could have made that query without naming the person involved. The only way that the police could lay charges was if Subway gave them all the details i.e. went into the station and made a statement. Do you really think the police would be chasing up Subway to get details if Subway hadn't pushed for charges to be laid? Remember this is over a cup of coke.
Jackie Lang was actually fired a month or so ago. Part of the issue is that when she tried to take a personal grievance because of unfair dismissal the George St Subway owners had her arrested. There is something like a 3 week delay between when Lang was fired and when she was arrested. In that 3 weeks the owners had time to realise that Lang was serious about the grievance and wasn't going to go away.
The union rep said on Campbell last night that Lang has a clean employment history with Subway (for 2 years), and has no criminal record.
"and has no criminal record."
ReplyDeletePeople who receive diversion have no criminal record - that's one of the benefits of accepting diversion.
Even if their _was_ previous criminal offending, so what? The issue here is the $4 cup of soft drink, not her previous record. The issue stands on the present employment facts, which so far, do seem as though she was treated unreasonably.
ReplyDelete> ... with legal and ethical
ReplyDelete> obligations.
No employer has an ethical obligation to offer continued employment someone who has stolen from him.
She stole, she was fired. She breached her employment contract, she broke the law, she broke her employment contract, and then had the gall to whinge about being fired.
If you want to boycott a company, how about Pizza Hut, whose American parent company fired a delivery man for carrying a (legal) weapon in contravention of company policy ... after he used it to defend himself against someone trying to rob him at gunpoint while on the job.
But no, you'll all come out swinging in favour of a thief. Nice.
We don't know yet if legally she has stolen anything. Subway employees are allowed to take Subway drinks on their break. She shared one of the drinks she was entitled to with a friend. Is that illegal? Is it a breach of her employment contract? I'll be really interested to see what the courts make of it.
ReplyDeleteNo employer has an ethical obligation to offer continued employment someone who has stolen from him.
Perhaps not. But they have a legal and ethical obligation to follow proper proceedure when sacking someone. Which Subway obviously hasn't in this situation.
Duncan, the information coming from the majority of sources suggests that she poured herself a drink while on break - as she was perfectly entitled to under company policy - and shared it with a friend. To suggest that this is in some way "theft" is quite bizarre.
ReplyDeleteGraeme, not all offenders are offered diversion, and as Tane points out it cannot be imposed unilaterally. All the information in the public arena so far indicates that Subway doesn't have a leg to stand on in either pending case, and in the employment one is likely to be taken to the cleaners. Diversion would be a lesser outcome than the vindication of having the case against her dismissed would be.
Idiot/Savant, I'd like to add myself to the roll of boycotters. Unfortunately I don't eat Subway anyway so in all honesty can't. However I don't think I'll start eating there any time soon!
Duncan, your pathological hatred of this poor woman and the fact you feel impelled to spread it across every forum in the country is more than a little disturbing. Are you psychologically unwell? Or is your belief system really so out of whack with reality that you honestly believe the shit you're spouting and feel the need to share?
ReplyDeleteI hate to box you into the 'mad or bad' dichotomy, but your insane rants really are starting to make me wonder.
It looks like the charges have been dropped.
ReplyDeleteTane, I support your opinion of Duncan. I doubt they're all there.
I suspect the cops knew they'd have no chance making it stick against a union-funded defence lawyer.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a reasonable belief that you can use/consume someone's property then you can't be convicted of stealing it. It's called a "claim of right" - look it up.
And even if a contract says "you must not share your free drinks with friends", if a person in authority repeatedly lets you, there's a reasonable argument that they were implicitly waiving the contract.
"A union-funded defence lawyer"??? I guess I should point out the fact that the AWU is a tiny little union with bugger all members that charges $1 a week in fees and relies on voluntary organisers. Yup, "union-funded lawyer", that's made my day.
ReplyDeleteShe's not in the SFWU? I know nothing about NZ unions..
ReplyDelete