I disagree. Unless Pearce was actually on his first and final (or simply final) warning at the time of his poor behaviour on Australia Day, I don't think his conduct reaches the threshold required to enforce the heaviest of sanctions. If he wasn't on any warnings (read being performance managed), his conduct would not justify a straight dismissal. There is ample industrial relations authority to support that proposition.
I agree with the comments on brand damage, etc. in saying that, however, even the likes of KPMG, PwC and others, would not dismiss one of theirs for Pearce's antics - as unacceptable as they were. Sacking someone isn't as easy (read without repurcussion or potential liability) as some people think it is. This isn't North Korea, or Albania, or Eygpt, or Cambodia, or Bolivia. No offence intended to folks from those parts of the world. My reference is more to industrial relations systems or lack thereof.
I agree with the comments on brand damage, etc. in saying that, however, even the likes of KPMG, PwC and others, would not dismiss one of theirs for Pearce's antics - as unacceptable as they were. Sacking someone isn't as easy (read without repurcussion or potential liability) as some people think it is. This isn't North Korea, or Albania, or Eygpt, or Cambodia, or Bolivia. No offence intended to folks from those parts of the world. My reference is more to industrial relations systems or lack thereof.
Comment