Storeman viewed porn 'to take his mind off work'

SHANE COWLISHAW Last updated 05:21 17/10/2012

Looking at internet porn at work earned a man the sack, despite his excuse that he did it only to take his mind off his demanding job. Reginald Hiha was dismissed in August 2011 from his position as storeman at Mico Bathrooms in Mt Maunganui after being caught looking at pornography. Employment Relations Authority member Anna Fitzgibbon said Mr Hiha explained he would look at the material to "take his mind off work, which he was finding demanding". He said he would have been embarrassed if anyone knew of the sites he was viewing so he took care other staff would not see. But despite his attempts at secrecy, Mr Hiha was spotted by a female staff member while he was looking at the pornographic images, and she complained to branch manager Malcolm Peden. After investigating Mr Hiha's internet history, the company called him to a meeting to discuss the issue. Mr Hiha admitted he had accessed the internet to view pornography regularly during a threemonth period before his dismissal, but did not agree that this constituted a serious breach of the company's policy. He told Mr Peden the material was only pictures with the occasional video and was "not harsh and . . . only people". After disciplinary proceedings and a further meeting, a decision was made to dismiss Mr Hiha. Mr Hiha argued that the company's policies should have explained what types of pornography were serious and could result in dismissal and which were less serious and could result in rights to internet access being removed.

Ms Fitzgibbon said she had viewed two reports of Mr Hiha's internet usage and described the images as "graphic and objectionable". "One of the reports I viewed contains 164 images depicting images of naked women, naked women and men in lewd poses and performing sex acts." She considered the material seriously offensive. Ms Fitzgibbon said the company had complied with its responsibilities as a fair and reasonable employer in firing Mr Hiha.

No compo for worker sacked over porn

MICHAEL DALY Last updated 13:45 16/10/2012

Sacked worker watched porn to 'take mind off work'

By Matthew Theunissen Email Matthew 3:20 PM Tuesday Oct 16, 2012

A man fired for looking at pornography at work said he was not aware his actions could be regarded as serious misconduct. Photo / Thinkstock

A man who was sacked for looking at pornography on his work computer argued that it was not serious porn because it was "only people". In her determination, released today, Employment Relations Authority (ERA) member Anna Fitzgibbon said that in May 2011, Reginald Hiha began accessing a website called tumbler from his work computer at Crane Distribution NZ, where he was employed as a store man. He regularly viewed pornographic images over a period of at least three months, "to take his mind off work, which he was finding demanding''. In August, a female employee saw him looking at pornography and complained to manager Malcolm Peden, who wrote Mr. Hiha a letter to arrange a disciplinary meeting. "You (Mr. Hiha) stated in the investigation meeting you knew of the Crane Distribution NZ Ltd policy and that internet was not for personal use and that you didn't think viewing pornography was allowed,'' he wrote. "You confirmed that the pictures were of female sexual content ('adults only, not harsh and was only people'). You agreed that you had been using the internet during work time for personal use, but believed it to be less than 1 hour a day (which you agreed was high use)." The company deemed his actions had amounted to serious misconduct and decided to terminate his employment. Mr. Hiha argued that he had been treated differently from other employees, referring to another worker who had misused the internet - but not to view pornography - and only received a warning. He also argued that the company's policies "should have set out which type of pornography was serious and could result in dismissal and which was less serious and could result in rights to internet access being remove".

To determine whether Mr. Hiha's conduct constituted serious misconduct, Ms Fitzgibbon said she had viewed a report on his internet usage which contained 164 images "depicting images of naked women, naked women and men in lewd poses and performing sex acts". "The images are graphic and objectionable." She found that the pornography viewed by Mr. Hiha was "seriously offensive" and "destroyed the trust and confidence that Mr. Peden had in Mr. Hiha". "Mr. Hiha says he was not aware that his conduct could be regarded as serious misconduct despite what, he agreed, is set out in the code of conduct, employment agreement and internet email policy. I find this hard to believe," she said. She found that the company complied with all its obligations as a fair and reasonable employer in sacking Mr. Hiha.
By Matthew Theunissen Email