“Devastated”…Stupid more like

Some silly tart is “devastated” that she lost an Employment Court case against Farmers:

A former Farmers’ employee is devastated after being fired for abusing staff discount privileges, and still denies she was in the wrong.

West Auckland resident Fae Osborne was sacked from her department manager role at LynnMall’s Farmers store after the company investigated claims she used her staff discount to buy items for a family member.

In a just released decision, the Employment Relations Authority ruled the department store was right in dismissing the employee, and denied Ms Osborne’s reinstatement and compensation claim of $30,000.

On February 11, 2010, Ms Osborne used her staff discount to buy four bottles of Brut body spray, a nightgown and a dressing gown, totalling $98.10.

Another department manager processed the sale and originally denied the purchase because Ms Osborne tried to use her father’s Eftpos card to pay for the goods.

Farmers’ employees can be sacked for buying goods on behalf of a friend or family, states company policy. Purchases for personal use or gifts for others are allowed.

Ms Osborne also “stashed” the heavily discounted clearance stock of Brut under a stand, in breach of company policy, said the report.

The company launched a formal investigation into the incident.

It considered the situation “sweethearting”, where employees use their staff discount card to buy goods for friends who have picked out the items.

Just over a month later, Ms Osborne was dismissed for breaching staff discount and holds’ policies, said the report.

She had been issued with a final written warning less than five months before the breach, causing her to move from the St Lukes store to the LynnMall store.

So she is “devastated” that she lost when she clearly breached company rules that the penalty for such a breach is dismissal? Not only that she is “devastated” about this event despite being warned and moved stores for the same offence previously.

I am “devastated” that the media takes the time to publish the words of a congenitally stupid person.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Elaycee

    Had to laugh at this part: “She had been issued with a final written warning less than five months before the breach, causing her to move from the St Luke’s store to the LynnMall store.”

    I really don’t think she is in any position to court sympathy – looks like the fact she was fired (with the decision by Farmers backed up by the Employment Court) is simply a case of her receiving her long overdue, just desserts.

  • Patience Needed

    Saw her photo online in the herald. Maybe they thought we’d sympathize because she’s attractive? Because she lucked out in the brains department.

  • What is she thinking going to the media?

    She is only hurting her chances of getting another job. You would only go to the media if you have an open and shut case. She does not because she lost. And it was not due to a technicality. 

    Any employer that reads this article will simply take one look at it and say I will not take a chance and employ somebody else. It is in her own best interests to say nothing at all. Much better. 

    As for the incident which got her the sack it appears from what I read that it was was simply the straw that broke the camels back. 

    • GPT

      Well said.  Employers are actually allowed to sack their employees with cause and given it seems to have been accepted that she has breached their policies and had a written warning there’s no obvious appeal point.

  • JAX

    Cant believe she owned up to buying Brut body spray.   Clearly no shame.  

  • Blair Mulholland

    Yeah I don’t think she has too much right to complain.  That said, what a stupid rule from Farmers.  So you can buy stuff for yourself, and you can buy gifts, but you can’t use someone else’s money?!  WTF?!  That’s pretty retarded.  Either a staff member has a discount or they don’t.  You can’t make up silly little rules about it, or what’s the point of offering the discount in the first place?

    • Actually “sweethearting” is a common way of committing fraud by staff members. the rules are there for a reason. Off line I can detail to you two cases in a retailer I did some anti-fraud work for where the staff had taken then for more than $5 million over the years in “sweethearting” scams.

    • Rockfield

      Sorry Blair, company rules are company rules, you don’t like them, you find another company to work for.

      Simple.

      R.

    • Paul Rain

      Umnah. Actually many retailers which attract a certain type of saleswoman have a setup where they will give a limited number of reduced discounts to close family members. Don’t play by the rules, and you will pay for it (or simply get dismissed and then choose to illustrate what an idiot you are in the media).

  • HSV325

    Stupid cow!! I am glad the ERA saw sense in this matter for a change

  • I get sick of non-thinking tarts letting down the side. And Blair it’s a perfectly valid ‘rule’ that is very common. Think about it- everyone would be furnishing their houses cheap, courtesy of a Farmers discount or getting free McDonald’s if sweet-hearting were commonly allowed, which it’s not because what’s the point of having shops it it weren’t? 

  • Rockfield

    Fae Osborne, there is dumb and there is dumb as.  Latter applies.

    R.

  • doughnuts

    brut body spray –  out her neck of the woods, the boyz put this directly into their carbies

  • Charles2336

    In cases like this, an employee is usually dismissed because of a swag of earlier failings. This case will be just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  • MrV

    This is just silly.
    There is not enough factual information in this article to know the true story.

    Fair enough if she was fitting out the houses of friends with thousands of dollars worth of goods.
    But $98 worth of goods? That is hardly worth anybodys time, let alone managements.
    In other words if she bought the items herself and then gave the items to friends/family that is fine by company policy.

    If there were other employment issues, then these should be reported on, rather than casting aspertions.

    I would have thought Farmers would have far greater operating concearns to worry about? Such as how their business will be getting destroyed by internet shopping and why their shops sometimes resemble cluttered flea-markets (for starters).

    • Vij

      Mr V, join Kosh103, you’re a moron

      • MrV

        @d569035a607ec09c0a121dc3be883089:disqus , That’s all you have, ad hom?

        I made a few enquiries, so you’ll need to explain to me why Farmers has days/evenings over the year where friends and family of staff can make specially discounted purchases. And in the lead up to Xmas specific days where staff can make said purchases.

        There might be more to this story …

      • Paul Rain

        Interesting. So Farmers actually has times when they allow friends and family to get special discounts- but this stupid bint chose not to take advantage of them- and you’re defending her? You must be a genius and a half.

      • MrV

        @google-e800ebee2270db85c5791c873ad83008:disqus
        Not ‘defending’ her per-se, only reason I commented is I had earlier read the stuff.co.nz story which has some slightly differing ‘facts’, which led me to believe you can kind-of-see her side of the story.

        Overall I really think it’s sad these types of things can’t be amicably resolved inhouse, and it is a sad indictment of some NZ management that for the sake of a $98 transaction taxpayer money has to be wasted through use of the ERA.
        But as I said before, not sure if these types of incidents are ever reported accurately and in full.

      • Paul Rain

        Well, when you consider that this has made it to the papers, this will only be the tip of a whole iceberg of fuck-arsing around.

    • Mully

      MrV: Have a look at the DOL website – it has the 20-odd page ruling. She’d done similar before, and she was a “manager” so was meant to be an example (plus she’d signed the policy saying she’d adhere, etc, etc)

    • While it sounds trivial it should be noted that she was already on her final warning. She was transferred to this store after getting the final warning. When somebody is on their final warning then you can see the writing on the wall. 

      Besides it is rare that Bosses enjoy firing people. I am sure that they would have been quite happy to have sort this issue out in house, and give her a warning …. but she had already had a previous warning, which according to the online ruling farmers felt they could have dismissed her on. 

      It appears that this case was the final straw. 

  • Symgardiner

    The big warning bell here is that FARMERS fired her. Farmers has a pretty good reputation in treating its employees very very well.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10773081

  • captain kidd

    The sence of entitlement!.the world is full of scammers,you should see what happens here in my hotel,guests try every trick in the book to get something for free,staff to for that matter.

    • MrV

      You can include some managements in that list as well. Look at all the golden parachutes for failed financial executives, govt bailout recipients etc.

      It’s the shareholders who end up bending over.

      • excuse me

        That’s a long stretch, trying to liken this in any way to “golden parachutes”. The latter are usually paid as part of an employment agreement anyway, a situation far removed from a person being dismissed for disobeying company rules – after being caught at it before and after signing an undertaking not to repeat her indiscretion.

        How can you maintain that “There is not enough factual information in this article to know the true story”? You can’t believe that.

  • Steve (North Shore)

    Get her into the Labour Party, they need her expertise

  • A-random-reader

    Silly girl!

    Now any prospective employer who googles her name will find links to this story.

  • Mully

    Here’s the full ruling if you care – 24 pages of it: http://www.dol.govt.nz/workplace/determinations/PDF/2011/2011_NZERA_Auckland_552.pdf

    I can’t believe she challenged it – first thing I do when I get a CV is a Google search.

    • old lag

      you’d have to say that Ms. Mounter sounds like a real nark though, eh boy…….

  • adybombs

    WTF was up with her lawyer allowing her to go to the tribunal with such a piss weak case.  When I first read the story I assumed she had represented herself as a lawyer would surely have advised her not to bother.  I was stunned upon reading the judgement to find out she had “professional” representation.  I’ll bet he didn’t take this case on a % of settlement basis, leaves his integrity looking as questionable as hers.

    • Anonymous

      Man there are some gems from the lawyer if you read the whole report. I especially like this one…

      “The third disciplinary meeting occurred on 16 March 2010. Ms Osborne was
      represented by Mr Nicholson. Mr Nicholson said that Ms Osborne’s parents had
      provided him with evidence about the money, but he felt it unnecessary to provide
      that documentation to the company.”

      Yip the “I’ve seen it but I’m not showing you but you can believe me” routine…

  • captain kidd

    Mully.
    yeah the first thing I do is google serch names of prospective employees.Its amazing what you uncover,silly thing is they dont even know why they cant get a job.

    adybomds
    flee lawyers are always about the fee nowdays,they dont care if they win or lose (never used to be this way)just after the money now.

  • Ploughman

    I don’t normally read the NZ Herald and I note they haven’t improved –  this is a typical headline of this grubby, sensation-seeking rag.  The lady in question was guilty of multiple instances of breaches in company policy while in a position of responsibility when she should have been setting an example.

    The headline should have been something like “Rip-off merchant gets just deserts”  or “Court crushes chump’s challenge.”  

40%