Retail worker wins $10k payout after being sacked for sharing anti-vax view with customer

A store worker who attracted a complaint from a customer over her anti-vax stance, has won a payout from her former employer.

Sandra Mulqueen worked for seven and a half years for The Merino Story (TMS) at its retail shop in the South Otago town of Milton.

She went to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to seek compensation from her former employer, arguing she had been unjustifiably dismissed after a customer complaint.

That decision, which was released last week, noted the company refuted her personal grievance, arguing that it justifiably dismissed Mulqueen for serious misconduct following a fair process.

READ MORE:
* Dismissal over uniform row upheld but suspension not justified
* Former Southland Boys’ High School assistant principals get pay out
* Fired for her ‘full-bodied’ language, coffee cart worker gets $16,000 after unfair dismissal

The company operated a number of stores selling merino products, with Mulqueen employed at the store from May 2014 until her dismissal on October 1, 2021.

Mulqueen acknowledged she tended to take on more responsibility than her role and job description required, doing what she believed to help the store succeed, including coming in on her days off to check on the store.

But TMS director Maureen van Tiel noted Malqueen had a reputation for a “rebellious attitude”, which caused issues at work. That included a list of examples of the employee: “Pushing her personal beliefs on customers within the store during work hours.”

Mulqueen believed she had a good track record at the store, but was unaware of undisclosed concerns raised by some customers to management.

In July 2021, van Tiel emailed all staff expressing concerns over controversial topics being discussed in the workplace, including, Covid, Covid vaccinations, protests, political comments, and legalising cannabis.

She then wrote specifically to Mulqueen about mask wearing, reminding her of the requirement to wear a mask, saying: “A failure to follow this lawful instruction may be considered to be a potential serious misconduct matter.”

In September a complaint was received from a Dunedin person who had stopped at the Milton store, but no longer wanted to shop their because of Mulqueen’s anti-vax stance.

“I couldn’t get out of there fast enough, and when I told her I didn’t agree and didn’t want to listen – she got worse..”

The next day van Tiel wrote to Mulqueen, asking her to respond in writing to the allegations that the company considered potential serious misconduct.

“I don’t remember how the conversation started and am sorry that she felt that I was ‘ramming anti vaccine info’ at her,” she replied.

Mulqueen added that she was shocked when the customer left the store saying: “I think the unvaccinated should have to pay for their hospital treatment.”

Mulqueen added in another email she was frazzled over receiving distressing news about a family member, and required leave to deal with that matter.

But two days later van Tiel wrote to her saying the company was proposing to dismiss her.

“Whilst we respect your right to hold your own views, you are not to communicate your opinions with customers,” the letter said.

Mulqueen replied: “I regret that may have made me a little disagreeable, but I was not rude or threatening to this customer in any way.”

“That is not how I conduct myself,” she wrote, and offered to apologise to the customer.

But she was dismissed the next day.

The ERA concluded TMS did not follow a fair and reasonable process before dismissing Mulqueen.

The decision noted the customer’s complaint lacked detail, including who started the conversation about Covid vaccinations.

It was unreasonable for TMS to accept what the customer said while at the same time discounting a long-serving employee’s response without further investigation, noting that van Tiel had written a reference saying Mulqueen was hardworking, honest, and loyal.

Furthermore, the company did not meet with Mulqueen, or disclose historical customer concerns, and it was unclear how one customer’s view could bring its name into disrepute.

“Together with Ms Mulqueen’s clean disciplinary record, explanations, and all the circumstances, I struggle to see how an isolated incident such as the one for which Ms Mulqueen was dismissed, could reasonably justify a conclusion of serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal.”

“I do not think a fair and reasonable employer could conclude that it did.”

Mulqueen sought $25,000 in compensation, and spoke about the significance of losing her job in such a disgraceful way in a small community, barely leaving the house for months following.

“I’ve spent the last seven years selling fashion, and it has not been a comfortable fit, for a punk like me,” she said.

The ERA ordered TMS to pay Mulqueen lost remuneration of $8018.65; and compensation totalling $10,800.