Firm can't fire man for 1.8 cent theft

By Hum
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Hum

Posted
Posted

(Reuters) - A German company that fired a man for the theft of 1.8 euro cents (two U.S. cents) worth of electricity had no grounds for sacking him, a court ruled, dismissing the firm's appeal against his reinstatement.

Network administrator Oliver Beel lost his job after charging his Segway, a two-wheeled electric vehicle, at work in May 2009. After he connected the vehicle to the firm's power source for 1-1/2 hours, his boss asked him to remove it.

Twelve days later Beel found himself without a job.

The court ruled that dismissal was disproportionate to the offence, especially given the "minimal electricity cost involved, the plaintiff's 19-year employment by the company and the fact other employees charged mobile phones and digital photo frames at the firm's expense without punishment."

source

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/935500-firm-cant-fire-man-for-18-cent-theft/
Share on other sites
Grand Master

tiagosilva29

Posted
Posted

I'm with the employer in this one, specially because of the last sentence of the quoted article.

This is just an poor excuse to fire him. There is not company in this world that will fire you for just two cents unless they don't like you and want you ass out.

It's an excuse like any other, and I've worked with people that where (again lawfully) fired for less.

Veteran

boo_star

Posted
Posted

and the fact other employees charged mobile phones and digital photo frames at the firm's expense without punishment."

I think that part makes it quite clear they were looking for an excuse to sack the guy. Unfortunate but not all that uncommon in countries with fairly robust employment laws. It's a shame the article doesn't specify the settlement though.

Veteran

boo_star

Posted
Posted

Now the problem is, who want's to return to a place that just did that to you? Going to be some animosity for a while... wonder if he can just somehow get a pension package so he can find a new job....

I doubt any of the settlement requires them to give him his job back, probably just compensation. Besides, this case will have been ongoing for some time, I'd expect the guy to have a new job by now.

Grand Master

tiagosilva29

Posted
Posted
I think that part makes it quite clear they were looking for an excuse to sack the guy.

That part doesn't state that the employer knew that people were charging those items, it only states that they did it and were not punished. Being punished doesn't mean that the punishable action was made aware to the punisher (the employer). Maybe any German-native can check a German article what the original phrase means.

It doesn't matter to me if he worked there for a couple months or 20 years, it doesn't matter if he took 1x10-9 or 2x104euros of electricity.

tl;dr: If the employer/company forbade their employees to do this leeching, he should be punished. If the employer/company knew that everybody was doing and/or allowed them to do it... then they have to suck it up. The first two tokens of the court ruling are completely irrelevant.

Now the problem is, who want's to return to a place that just did that to you? Going to be some animosity for a while... wonder if he can just somehow get a pension package so he can find a new job...

I don't know if the european law passed around, but if he worked there for 19 years he should get 19 months of pay, plus unused vacation pay and lil' more... if he quitted the job (again, I don't know if this is european community-wise).

Grand Master

Ji@nBing

Posted
Posted

Companies do stuff like this all the time if they want to get rid of you. They didn't like a guy at my work, so he got fired for "leaving early". When he asked when this apparently took place and how early, they couldn't even tell him.

Grand Master

Nagisan

Posted
Posted

I doubt any of the settlement requires them to give him his job back, probably just compensation. Besides, this case will have been ongoing for some time, I'd expect the guy to have a new job by now.

I think it did, "dismissing the firm's appeal against his reinstatement" which means the company filed an appeal against his reinstatement, as the court turned down that appeal, to me that means he was reinstated (the appeal AGAINST his reinstatement was turned down meaning his reinstatement went through).

Veteran

boo_star

Posted
Posted

That part doesn't state that the employer knew that people were charging those items, it only states that they did it and were not punished. Being punished doesn't mean that the punishable action was made aware to the punisher (the employer). Maybe any German-native can check a German article what the original phrase means.

It doesn't matter to me if he worked there for a couple months or 20 years, it doesn't matter if he took 1x10-9 or 2x104euros of electricity.

tl;dr: If the employer/company forbade their employees to do this leeching, he should be punished. If the employer/company knew that everybody was doing and/or allowed them to do it... then they have to suck it up. The first two tokens of the court ruling are completely irrelevant.

I don't know if the european law passed around, but if he worked there for 19 years he should get 19 months of pay, plus unused vacation pay and lil' more... if he quitted the job (again, I don't know if this is european community-wise).

Well yes ok, the problem with the Reuters article is that it is incredibly sparse. Every company I have worked for has either said "Go ahead" or "Go ahead as long as you get <electrical item> sent off to be certified as safe."

I would also note the "without punishment" which implies they DID in fact know about them charging phones etc but did nothing about it.

Having said that the guy had been there for 19 years and it was 2c worth of electricity. Even with a "don't use our electricity policy" you don't fire a 19 year employee for 2c unless there's another reason you want them gone.

Veteran

boo_star

Posted
Posted

I doubt any of the settlement requires them to give him his job back, probably just compensation. Besides, this case will have been ongoing for some time, I'd expect the guy to have a new job by now.

Having done a quick Google search it does in fact appear that the guy in question actually ASKED to be reinstated. Wow, I'd have to be drugged up to my eyeballs to avoid the overwhelming paranoia of them working hard to find a way that they COULD fire me without ending up in court (and then prboably get fired for being drugged up to my eyeballs :) )

Grand Master

tiagosilva29

Posted
Posted
I would also note the "without punishment" which implies they DID in fact know about them charging phones etc but did nothing about it.

It really doesn't mean that.

For instance:

  • swuzzlebum raids Neowin's paper clip deposit
    • Neobond is aware of swuzzlebum's action
      • Neobond goes back into drinking -> aware action and she goes unpunished
      • Neobond delivers the banhammer -> aware action and she goes punished

      [*]Neobond is not aware of swuzzlebum's action -> unaware action and she, obviously, goes unpunished

Having said that the guy had been there for 19 years and it was 2c worth of electricity. Even with a "don't use our electricity policy" you don't fire a 19 year employee for 2c unless there's another reason you want them gone.

You're trying to rationalise the proceedings for someone being fired... by you or someone with the same line of thought. In the whole universe of employers, believe me, there are people who are not not as permissive as you or many of these thread.

Neobond is one of these employers.

Veteran

boo_star

Posted
Posted

Neobond is not aware of swuzzlebum's action -> unaware action and she, obviously, goes unpunished

In terms of news articles "unpunished" usually means they ignored it.

I suppose when you bring a Segway into the office it might be more noticeable but nevertheless, why are the remaining staff not being fired for using a damn sight more electricity than the plaintiff (or as it was an appeal, the defendant)

I used to work for a bank, despite "no call" times (callcentre-type environment) reading newspapers was forbidden (and the computers were using Netscape god knows what on OS/2), there was a clear policy set out for internet usage (it wont work on these PC's :) but was allowed other than personal webmail accounts) Electrically as long as it didnt cause a trip hazzard they didn't care (one previous employer did but all they required was that the device was tested once per year and stickered so their insurance couldn't claim a faulty device as causing the building to burn down).

But rules were bent and or broken as needs be.

This is a 19 year veteran employee, you don't fire someone with that experience in your systems unless

A) They are being paid far more than their fellow employees due to time served and the remaining team can make up the slack with a newbie

B) Their 20th anniversary would entitle them to some benefit that the company felt they would rather not offer in this economic climate

or

C) Someone for whatever reason wanted rid and found a way to fire them for Gross Misconduct.

What I don't understand is why he wanted to be reinstated.

He'll be watched like a hawk and fired within the year (for a real reason)

(Technically in the UK it might be considered Constructive Dismissal but in Germany I don't know).

Suffice to say, in the UK, despite company policy, what he did would warrant a verbal warning at best. Thankfully the German Judge agrees with me.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.