Supermarket 'prank’ leads to sacking

Press, 16 February 1984, Page 11

Supermarket 'prank’ leads to sacking

A schoolboy prank, played on a supermarket checkout girl, resulted in the prankster losing his part-time job, the Arbitration Court was told in Christchurch yesterday.

The boy. whose name was suppressed, said he flicked the girl under the chin after first pointing to an imaginary spot on her smock. He said he did not mean to hurt her. It was a prank that had become “a craze” amongst his school friends.

His subsequent dismissal from the Woolworths supermarket at Shirley was being contested before the Court by the Shop Employees Union.

Mr A. A. Couch sought suppression of the boy’s name, as well as the names of several other witnesses because of their age. He said that all were still young people who had yet to start careers. Any publicity could harm their job prospects. If the schoolboy, who was aged 15 at the time of the incident, ever faced criminal charges, they would be heard before the Children and Young Persons Court where his name would automatically be suppressed. Chief Judge Horn granted the suppression on these grounds. The boy told the Court that he was employed by Woolworths to collect trolleys from the carpark and to tidy up. There had always been a certain amount of fun and joking among the younger staff. About 5 p.m. on March 9, 1983, he and another boy had been resting after collecting trolleys. Two checkout girls walked past.

He said he walked up to one of the girls, said hello, and pointed to her clothing, as if to indicate a dirty spot, so that she would look downwards. He then flicked his hand upwards to catch her on the face.

The girl swore at him and walked on.

“I just laughed. I thought she was carrying on the joke," he said.

He was later called to the office of the supermarket manager, Mr M. G. Boyd. When asked why he had hit the girl, the boy had said that it was just a joke. The boy was given a “dressing ’ down” by Mr Boyd and told he would be spoken to again. During a second interview, about 20 minutes later, Mr Boyd called the checkout girl into his office. When asked if she had thought the incident to be a joke she said no. The boy was then dismissed and given one week’s pay in lieu of notice. As he left the supermarket, the boy apologised to the girl and told her he had been sacked. He told the Court that she had seemed surprised. When cross-examined by counsel for Woolworths (Mr A. J. Davis) the boy said he would be surprised if the girl still had a red mark on her face three hours later. He did not think that he had hit her very hard. The girl’s father told the Court that his daughter had a red mark on the left side of her face when she came home at 8.30 p.m. He admitted under cross-examination by Mr Couch that she had been rubbing her face. In her evidence, the girl said she had been walking with her head down after coming out of the supermarket. She did not hear or see anyone before being hit on the face.

She said the slap was so hard it made her cry. She was shocked and upset at the incident but walked away and wanted to forget about it.

Another checkout girl thought the matter should be taken further. When they returned to the supermarket to have their tea, the other girl raised the incident with

a service supervisor, Mrs C. Samson.

Mrs Samson in turn raised the matter with Mr Boyd. The other boy who had been collecting trolleys said he was surprised at the force used to hit the girl. He said he had seen the prank played before, had been a victim and prankster numerous times himself, but had never seen anyone hit that hard before.

Mr Boyd said he did not doubt that the boy had not intended to hurt the girl. It was obvious that she had been hurt and he could not condone such action.

He had given the boy a “dressing down" during the first interview because he wanted him to realise that it was a serious incident. “It could well have been a joke but I still wanted to get the point across that it was not a time for joking; he was not at school,” said Mr Boyd.

In his submissions, Mr Davis said that “while boys will be boys,” a line had to be drawn somewhere. The other boy collecting trolleys had obviously drawn the line at the amount of force behind the slap.

Mr Couch submitted the matter should have gone no further than the severe reprimand issued to the boy in his first interview with Mr Boyd.

The aim of any action taken by Mr Boyd would be to ensure such an incident did not happen again. The reprimand would have met that aim, he said. It had been a childish prank by a boy not used to a work place and the employer had over-reacted, said Mr Couch.

Reinstatement of the boy to his after-school job or compensation was being sought by the union.

A decision on the case was reserved by Chief Judge Horn and Messrs E. W. J. Ball and T. R. Weir.