According to the court decision, the incident occurred in July 2015, when Baltimore was temporarily relocated to the hotel’s butcher shop, where meats and other products were processed for meals at on-site restaurants. Such foodstuffs were routinely removed from the hotel’s storehouse at the request of the chief chef. Baltimore was briefly reassigned to assist in the butcher’s shop while another employee was on vacation. It was noted that, except from a general understanding of how the various departments worked with one another, Baltimore had no additional training or explanation on how to perform his new duties.
On 20 July, selected meats were ordered for the butcher shop from the storeroom, including a case of prawns and a case of salmon that were not stated on the order. The next day, an employee from the storage, Efical Finch, grabbed the extra things from the shop and carried them to the “back of the house area”. Security discovered the shrimp and salmon in the hotel’s rubbish compactor, and the incident was reported to the general manager. The security manager provided a report that included Finch’s evidence as to why he removed the things from the butcher shop and placed them in the back of the housing area, as well as Baltimore and other storeroom staff. Following the report, the resort’s management and human resources manager met with Baltimore, who was then suspended with pay for a few days while an internal inquiry was conducted.
Baltimore was reportedly warned that when he returned to work, another meeting would be held. Baltimore was fired when he returned to work five days later, despite the fact that the probe appeared to be over. According to the decision, despite the availability of a potentially good justification for the dismissal of a number of its employees as a result of the July 2015 incident, the resort failed to demonstrate the sufficient factual foundation for dismissing Baltimore for “conspiring to steal” or “theft”. The court found that the hotel acted unreasonably by failing to fully incorporate Baltimore in the investigation, including failing to inform him of the charges against him, warning him that his employment was in peril, and giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
The court also believed that the security manager’s report depended excessively on the comments of Finch, who was regarded an untrustworthy source. “Based on the contents of the dismissal letter, it is clear to us that the employer relied heavily, if not exclusively, on [the security manager’s] report and rushed to judgement without any sufficient regard for procedural fairness,” according to the ruling.
