Zookeeper says she was 'stressed and burnt out'
The Public Service Appeal Board of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission rejected an appeal to overturn a zookeeper’s dismissal after finding that her failure to lock part of the animals’ enclosures were valid reasons for termination.
The Director General of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions at Perth Zoo had let go of the zookeeper due to an incident where the lock to the sun bear exhibit was not secured.
The incident happened when the zoo’s crew were cleaning the animals’ quarters. As issues of security and safety were extremely important in their workplace, certain strict procedures were implemented to make sure that the animals wouldn’t escape, including multiple people working in groups to clean and maintain each enclosure.
After being on leave for eight weeks, the zookeeper returned to work. One of the tasks involved her to help clean the sun bears’ exhibit.
The zookeeper was the one who removed the cleaning equipment from the airlock and closed and bolted a second door behind her. However, it was during this routine that she did not secure the padlock. Rather, she left it hanging on the panel.
According to records, she accepted that as she was the last person to leave the enclosure, she had the responsibility to ensure the lock to the airlock gate was secure, which includes the gate being properly placed.
Following an investigation, the employer found that she committed a breach of discipline. It also said that she violated the zoo’s standard operating procedure and code of conduct. She was then terminated from employment.
Stressed and burnt out
The employer argued that the worker had committed similar mistakes in the past, such as not securing the enclosures which led to the escape of a sun bear and an otter pup. It said that properly securing the enclosures is an essential part of the job and must be done to a very high standard. The employer also said the worker was warned that any more mistakes could result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.
The employee’s representative argued that dismissal was “out of proportion,” adding that the zookeeper believed it was “unfair” considering her “length of service, her contrition and acceptance of responsibility, and her circumstances.”
The decision also noted that she said she suffered “work-related stress, anxiety and burn out.” She argued that the penalty was too harsh given the circumstances and that mistakes in securing enclosures over a span of two decades did not make “a pattern of behaviour.” She also requested for the Board to adjust her workload.
The decision
After examining the evidence, the Board acknowledged the unique nature of the Perth Zoo. It determined that the main responsibility of a zookeeper was to ensure enclosures were secured, and the worker’s repeated mistakes made it hard for the Board to be confident that she could do her job properly.
The Board commented that, when the worker first had concerns about her workload, the employer should have conducted a more thorough assessment and evaluation of the situation. However, the Board noted that it was “unclear” how her workload concerns impacted the worker on the day of the incident.
The Board further said that it did not have any authority to change her working arrangements with the employer. Ultimately, the Board rejected the zookeeper’s appeal.
