Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 NOVEMBER 2017

Robbery, but not under arms: did the safety policy still apply?

Employers should focus on the actual provisions of a policy to make sure it does apply before using it for termination.

AustraliaEmployment and HR

In the recent case of Mistry v Woolworths (Fair Work Commission, 2017), Mr Mistry made an unfair dismissal application when his employment was terminated, because when he was confronted by a would-be robber at a petrol station, he failed to follow a policy intended to protect the safety of employees and customers.

Mr Mistry was in sole charge of the petrol station late one evening, when a young male with a backpack approached the counter and said "Give me the money" and "Give me the money or I will jump the counter." Mr Mistry backed away from the till and said he couldn't. The customer said "Okay, give me the smokes." Mr Mistry was confused about what the robber wanted, but some other customers entered the service station, and the man took some items and left the store. The stand-off lasted about two minutes.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from