2 days ago
Shock twist after park boss was sacked over her four-minute foul-mouthed rant - despite 21 years of 'unblemished service'
A gift shop manager will be able to keep her job after she was sacked following a four-minute verbal tirade where she swore at and 'humiliated' another worker.
Helen Woodlock has worked for Parks Victoria for 21 years and manages the gift shop in the Dandenong Botanical Gardens.
But her employer had fought to have her sacked after an incident with a staff member from the adjacent Café Vireya in August 2023.
Ms Woodlock had decades of 'unblemished service' until she erupted at the café worker for leaving the site unattended while several customers waited to be served.
Countless complaints had been made about the café to Ms Woodlock who shouted 'f***' upon entering the store to find it empty.
Soon after, the café attendant showed up, Ms Woodlock said: 'Jesus Christ, what the s***'s going on?
'People have been waiting here for f***ing 45 minutes. People are asking for food. Where are you?'
The café worker replied that he had walked to the nearby IGA to get more paper for the EFTPOS machine.
Ms Woodlock told the staffer he'd been gone for an hour and customers had been waiting even longer.
'Do you know what? And again I am sorry to diss you in front of customers but I've got these people coming up and I want to look after them,' she said.
'We've walked around for perhaps thirty minutes. The other man walked in and I'm like "hello, hello".
'These are our customers into our gardens, and where are you? So yes, I am upset because this is our gardens.'
The café worker then said: 'Can you please stop yelling at me?'
Ms Woodlock told the attendant he needed to speak to his manager.
The incident was then investigated following a complaint about Ms Woodlock from the cafe's operator, with the CEO of Parks Victoria proposing she be fired.
Ms Woodlock to the matter to the Fair Work Commission (FWC), claiming her proposed termination was unfair.
She argued she walked into the café because she had safety concerns due to complaints about service delays and a gas smell.
The FWC rejected her arguments, finding that her actions were the 'hallmarks of bullying' and therefore warranted termination.
'The nature of this conduct was degrading and humiliating,' the Commissioner found.
'It amounted to abuse and mistreatment of (the café worker) in circumstances of a power imbalance caused by the group aspect of the behaviour.'
Ms Woodlock then successfully appealed the findings.
In considering Ms Woodlock's appeal, the FWC heard that after 21 years of unblemished service, she was given 'unsolicited praise' from customers and had glowing performance reviews.
Ms Woodlock claimed her job was 'part of my identity', that she was remorseful, and personal issues like the recent deaths of her step father and father-in-law, along with a 'serious respiratory illness' played a role in her behaviour.
The FWC bench found that the previous Commissioner had relied on an incomplete draft record of an interview of the attendant.
The FWC bench said Ms Woodlock subjected the worker to 'brutal public humiliation'.
But there were numerous and 'significant countervailing considerations in the team leader's favour'.
'What took place was an uncharacteristic outburst of frustration and anger lasting four minutes, which, as we have noted, was partly explained by the poor emotional state [the team leader] was in as a result of her personal circumstances,' the bench found.
'We are also of the view that the personal difficulties she was suffering were exacerbated on the day of the incident, as a result of the respiratory illness that she was recovering from, the many incidents involving the café that she had been required to deal with over a lengthy period, and her distress at having to deal with angry customers of the café immediately prior to the incident.'
It noted that while Ms Woodlock's conduct was serious, in their opinion 'dismissal is not disproportionate to the seriousness of her conduct'.
'We are satisfied that there is no risk of a repetition of the misconduct, and Parks Victoria will continue to receive the good service [Ms Woodlock] has provided for many years,' the bench found.
It was also heard that the worker who was the subject of the abuse would suffer no unfairness from Ms Woodlock's continued employment because he no longer worked at the café.
'On the other hand, for [Ms Woodlock], the loss of her job would be a heavy, life changing penalty from which it is unlikely she would recover given that her prospects of gaining other employment are limited,' the bench said.
'In all of the circumstances, we consider that dismissal would be unfair.'
