Worker denies allegation, claims he had access to multiple toilets
A security guard in New Zealand has been fired by his employer for serious misconduct after he was found guilty of defecating on school grounds and missing three of his rostered shifts.
Thomas Marsters was hired on October 21, 2021, by Allied Security before he was dismissed for his violations on May 20, 2022.
His first violation involved his reported defecation on a basin in a passageway between two sheds in late March.
Despite denying that he did this, CCTV footage showed Marsters was the only one entering and leaving the area between the time the passageway was checked by the school and the discovery of the faeces days later.
Marsters argued that he could have had access to toilets to multiple sites and that it would not be physically possible for him to defecate within the timeframe. He also pointed out that a neighbour could have also thrown faeces over a fence.
Allied Security's probe, however, made them decide on the "balance of probabilities" that Marsters was behind the deposit. According to the employer, it was unlikely that another person could be blamed because they would need to climb a 1.8-metre-high fence, defecate in the basin, and climb back without being seen on CCTV.
Allied Security also considered in the dismissal Marsters' missed rostered shifts on April 16, 17, and 18 of April 2022 without informing anyone of his absence.
Marsters defended that he was suffering from allergies that made his face swell up and his right eye closed, while adding that he could not see with his left eye. According to the security guard, he woke up without being able to see anything and without seeing his phone. His mobile phone had a touch screen, but the battery had died.
He said he did not seek medical help because he didn't have the money to make an appointment with a doctor.
Marsters' employer, however, partly rejected his defence due to his decision not to seek medical assistance despite being incapacitated at that time.
The company then decided, following the two instances, to summarily dismiss Marsters from his employment on May 20.
Marsters raised a grievance with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) arguing unjustified dismissal, but the authority ruled in favour of his employer.
According to the ERA, Allied Security investigated the allegation and gave Marsters a reasonable opportunity to respond before dismissing him.
"I find that it was open to Allied Security to conclude that Mr Marsters had defecated in the area and accordingly was guilty of serious misconduct warranting dismissal. I reiterate, Allied Security was entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the evidence it received, and on the investigation it conducted," the ERA said in its ruling.
The company's investigation on his missed shifts was also "properly investigated."
"Dismissal for this offence may seem harsh, however under the circumstances as I have already found Allied Security was entitled to conclude Mr Marsters was guilty of serious misconduct warranting dismissal in respect of the defecation, it has already justified its dismissal."
