If it wasn’t already obvious, don’t ever access questionable websites while on the job. A Qantas employee has been fired for repeatedly watching x-rated content. He claimed he accessed the content accidentally…
Qantas Employee Fired For Repeatedly Watching X-Rated Content On Job
A Qantas engineer with 41 years of seniority was terminated after multiple complaints he frequently accessed explicit content on a Qantas-issued iPad while on the job.
Two female colleagues complained that the employee used the “engineering hut” at Brisbane Airport as his lair. On multiple occasions between 2016-18 he was caught looking at inappropriate material there.
An Impotent Defense
After being sacked from Qantas, the employee appealed his termination to Australia’s Fair Work Commission. Appearing before the Commission, the Qantas employee said he accidentally accessed the graphic content while “micro-sleeping” on the job. Microsleep is sleep that lasts from a few to several seconds. He also pointed to an otherwise stellar career spanning over 40 years. But the Commission did not buy his excuse, stating:
“The pornographic material viewed by the Applicant was seen by two female employees on five occasions and had a significant impact on them.
“There is no excuse for the Applicant viewing pornography at work.”
Another lesson here: be honest. While pulling the “microsleep” defense, the worker admitted that his female colleagues “may have seen something on the iPad screen which upset them.” The commission seized upon that lack of clarity to argue that his defense “implicitly impugns” the credibility of women.
CONCLUSION
Earlier this year, Qantas furloughed 20,000 employees…about 2/3 of its workforce. 6,000 of those employees will not return. Accessing inappropriate content on company-issued equipment is simply not a smart move at anytime, but especially now. Even four decades of building your reputation can quickly be lost…
At the same time however Qantas flight attendants will replace security guards on quarantine watch.
Not painting with a broad brush, but…
I wonder if he were in the US could he have claimed disability because of medical condition? Sleep apnea causing drowsiness on the job which the employer didn’t try to accommodate and ADHD which caused impulsive but brief watching of porn. Then sue the airline for a lot even though unjustified
The plausibility of this comment is why the U.S. doesn’t deserve to be a world leader to any country. Continue to lead by example AUS. 🙂
As they say, common sense, not so common…
Totally unacceptable and he got what he deserved. Now, was he watching some really hardcore stuff that made the Commission say that “The pornographic material viewed by the Applicant was seen by two female employees on five occasions and had a significant impact on them.” What significant impact could that have caused on the two females? Another snowflake generation complain?
I’m sure those women will be scarred for life, they must have been pristine virgins who have never seen pornography before, and now are too afraid to leave their homes. Gone are the days when people dealt with people directly when they have a problem. “Hey Jim, a word please…how about stop watching porn at work you sicko, now get back to work!” That would have done the trick, but no, you got to destroy the lives of people that offend you in the slightest.
Agree with you totally on the women reaction. They could have been offended and reported him but now say they suffered a significant impact that is basically snowflakes. Now, no matter if he did only once or 5 times there is no place for such a thing when using corporate equipment. The IT team of Qantas should be the one flagging him and reporting him to get fired.
Awww. Ickle Trumpette supports people watching porn at work. The biggest lols were saved for “destroy the lives of people that offend you”.
When your Dear Leader does that, you cheer. Sadly you’re not man enough to take it as well as you dish it.
This story is a bit click-baitish (in a good way) and invites this observation I’ve ruminated over for some time:
In the 90’s, it struck me as odd regarding the sexual harassment separate “reasonable woman” standard conflicting with the narrative that women were supposed to be equals to men and showed it much of the time cussing like sailors.
In 1992, a woman with a gripe against me made an HR complaint that a remark I had made in her presence offended her. It was remarkably tame even by church standards. The management review committee nonetheless took it VERY seriously and all I said in response was: “Er, wasn’t this gal in the Marines for 4 years?”
They thought about it for a few seconds and said: “This review is over. Matter dismissed.”
In the modern era, this paradox is especially evident as the diverse workplace requires a level of “tolerance” that conflicts with the “reasonable” “Karen” being more easily offended than a “reasonable” man. She may need to share her bathroom with a trans-gender man (Hello TERFs!), Modern Zoomers who have “OnlyFans” accounts. Half of these women may be producing pornography!
I remember my maternal grandmother (my paternal grandmother died when I was a toddler) who apparently loved to watch boxing (the more blood, the better!), didn’t mind hippies because “If Jesus had long hair, then what’s the problem with hippies?” and had several children and was expected to have a healthy sex life. These women were both feminine AND tough.
Gross. Do you feel better getting that thought vomit out? You sound just as much of a pig now as you probably were in ‘92. Just because you got away with it then does not mean you weren’t in the wrong. The world will be better when your generation is gone.
This story is a bit click-baitish (in a good way) and invites this observation I’ve ruminated over for some time:
In the 90’s, it struck me as odd regarding the sexual harassment separate “reasonable woman” standard conflicting with the narrative that women were supposed to be equals to men and showed it much of the time cussing like sailors.
In 1992, a woman with a gripe against me made an HR complaint that a remark I had made in her presence offended her. It was remarkably tame even by church standards. The management review committee nonetheless took it VERY seriously and all I said in response was: “Er, wasn’t this gal in the Marines for 4 years?”
They thought about it for a few seconds and said: “This review is over. Matter dismissed.”
In the modern era, this paradox is especially evident as the diverse workplace requires a level of “tolerance” that conflicts with the “reasonable” “Karen” being more easily offended than a “reasonable” man. She may need to share her bathroom with a trans-gender man (Hello TERFs!), Modern Zoomers who have “OnlyFans” accounts. Half of these women may be producing pornography!
I remember my maternal grandmother (my paternal grandmother died when I was a toddler) who apparently loved to watch boxing (the more blood, the better!), didn’t mind hippies because “If Jesus had long hair, then what’s the problem with hippies?” and had several children and was expected to have a healthy sex life. These women were both feminine AND tough.
That being said, I don’t disagree that looking at inappropriate material at work is grounds for dismissal.
You leftists own the cancel culture. Don’t project. It’s bad form.
What is the problem with you people? Why all the victim blaming?
Look, if the coworkers got distracted due to the blatant violation of norm, that’s significant impact. The commission didn’t say they needed psychological support. They were “impacted.” Distracted, shocked, annoyed, paranoia are all impacts which result in degradation of performance.
And what’s with the stupid tone? Just because I enjoy, says, taking a dump in the toilet doesn’t mean I won’t get disgusted (and impacted) when someone do that at their desk. Why do these people need to be virgins to be impacted?
He could have been researching domestic holiday locations and thought NSFW stood for New South F Wales.
This seems unnecessarily harsh. I’m not sure that watching porn ( assuming it’s the plain vanilla kind..) is any more inappropriate than watching CNN or, for that matter, reading Live and Let’s Fly. Of course, he need to be more discreet about it, but firing him after 41 years? Give him another chance…
Seems like he had 4 chances already. 5th time unlucky.
“Significant Impact.” Lol.
I’m not condoning this guy’s behavior at work, but it’s kind of funny how taboo pornography is still considered when in reality it’s viewed by such a large portion of the population on a very regular basis.