Hosted by: Eyo Technologies Pty Ltd. Sponsored by: Actiontec Pty Ltd
Twist in Telstra sex romp case [Archive] - Aussie Phorums

PDA

View Full Version : Twist in Telstra sex romp case


Pages : [1] 2 3

Ext User(Alan Parkington)
25-01-2008, 12:34 AM
From
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
get her job back.

Carlie Streeter was sacked from her job at a Miranda Telstra store in
February last year after an investigation into a night of alcohol-fuelled
sex and partying with colleagues.

Telstra accused Ms Streeter of having sex with a male employee in the bath
tub of a hotel room at Cronulla's Rydges Hotel.

It was alleged another male employee was in the bath tub at the time when
the trio was interrupted by a female employee.

The two former male colleagues - Steve Hatzistergos and Aakash Sharma - also
lost their jobs over the scandal, along with another unnamed employee.

Bosses were alerted to the incident after another female employee made
complaints about Ms Streeter's behaviour on the night to a store manager.

Ms Streeter subsequently appealed against her dismissal and won her case.

But yesterday, Telstra won its own appeal against the ruling made in the
Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which had ordered the
telco giant to reinstate Ms Streeter and pay her compensation for lost
earnings.

The successful appeal means Telstra has no obligation to give Ms Streeter
her job back or pay her compensation.

The decision, handed down by a full bench of the AIRC, ruled Ms Streeter's
termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

A Telstra spokeswoman last night said that Telstra welcomed the decision.

"We are pleased the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have upheld
our appeal," she said.

The sex-romp scandal ignited debate about the right of employers to sack
workers for bad behaviour while off the job.

In September last year a worker sacked by Allianz Australia Services,
following a drunken after-hours trivia night, won the right to a full bench
rehearing of his claim in the AIRC.

The AIRC had previously thrown out his unfair dismissal case, which followed
his sacking for threatening a manager with physical and sexual assault.

Ms Streeter has kept a low profile since her sexual exploits were revealed
by The Daily Telegraph in August.

Her lawyer Kelly Durant yesterday said his client was upset by the
commission's ruling and was keen to discuss whether she could launch a
further appeal in the Federal Court.

"Ms Streeter is unhappy about the decision and feels like justice hasn't
been served. This has been a long fight," he said.

"She understands that these are matters of law. But she's quite aggrieved by
the decision."

Ext User(Craig Welch)
25-01-2008, 09:04 AM
"Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:

>From
>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>
>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>get her job back.

Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/

Ext User(Simon Templar)
25-01-2008, 10:13 AM
Craig Welch wrote:
> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>
>> From
>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>
>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>> after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>> get her job back.
>
> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

Yeh, so what if 3 adults were having sex in bath tub, it's not as if
they were at work!


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

Ext User(John Phillips)
25-01-2008, 10:33 AM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:10:46 +1100 Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net>
wrote:

> > Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
> Yeh, so what if 3 adults were having sex in bath tub, it's not as if
> they were at work!

Maybe they were?

How much did she charge? ;-)

Ext User(Horry)
25-01-2008, 12:03 PM
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:

> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>
>>From
>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>
>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>get her job back.
>
> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
character of its employees?

Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").

Ext User(Kwyjibo)
25-01-2008, 12:53 PM
"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>
>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>
>>>From
>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>
>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation
>>>and
>>>get her job back.
>>
>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
> character of its employees?

They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards have
been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be measured
against?

--
Kwyj.

Ext User(dave)
25-01-2008, 01:03 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:26:44 +1030, Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>
>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>
>>>From
>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>
>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>get her job back.
>>
>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>character of its employees?

Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work
? If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative. Isn't it
enough that Telstra treats its employees like shit anyway ?

Ext User(John Phillips)
25-01-2008, 01:03 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:21 +1100 dave <dave@gtx.net> wrote:

> Isn't it
> enough that Telstra treats its employees like shit anyway ?

Do they?

Ext User(Horry)
25-01-2008, 01:53 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:13 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>
>>>>From
>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>
>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation
>>>>and
>>>>get her job back.
>>>
>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>
>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>> character of its employees?
>
> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards have
> been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be measured
> against?

Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a company (be
it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John Smith & Son
Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with
any specificity).

Ext User(Simon Templar)
25-01-2008, 01:53 PM
Horry wrote:
> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
> character of its employees?
>
> Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
> not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").

What moral standards apply here? There was no crime committed, the
three were consenting adults fucking in a bath tub. Big FUCKING deal,
good luck to them.

The stupid bitch that walked in on them obviously didn't knock before
she entered and it didn't happen during work or at work, so what FUCKING
business was it of Tel$tra anyway?


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

Ext User(Horry)
25-01-2008, 02:03 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:21 +1100, dave wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:26:44 +1030, Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>
>>>>From
>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>
>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>>get her job back.
>>>
>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>
>>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>character of its employees?
>
> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work
> ?

Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour by employees can reflect
poorly on a company.

Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral standards on its
employees? Because it's paying them.

Companies regularly impose conditions on their employees' behaviour outside
working hours. For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.

Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.

Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?

After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular
employer.

> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.

I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a service-oriented
business owner whose employees got caught red-handed by the Daily Telegraph
after your work Christmas party engaging in some engaging in some group
scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.

Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the Australian
equivalent of NAMBLA.

Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.

You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick
smart.

Ext User(Horry)
25-01-2008, 02:13 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:45:19 +1100, Simon Templar wrote:

> Horry wrote:
>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>> character of its employees?
>>
>> Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
>> not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").
>
> What moral standards apply here?

Many people don't approve of group sex.


> There was no crime committed,

So what? Criminal law and morality don't necessarily coincide. Indeed,
application of criminal law sometime *causes* immoral results. And much
immoral behaviour is not criminalized (nor should it be).


> the
> three were consenting adults fucking in a bath tub. Big FUCKING deal,
> good luck to them.

That's fine. When you're an employer you'll be free to hire employees who
practice after-hours bathtub-fucking.


> The stupid bitch that walked in on them obviously didn't knock before
> she entered

No. If this sorry story has a "stupid bitch", it'd be the stupid bitch in
the bathtub who obviously didn't lock the bathroom door. Of course, the
two stupid bastards were equally as stupid.

> and it didn't happen during work or at work, so what FUCKING
> business was it of Tel$tra anyway?

See my response to Dave.

Incidentally, how do you square the disclaimer in your sig file with the
views you just expressed?

I'm referring to: "The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any
organisation I may belong to."

What FUCKING business is it of any organization you may belong to?

Ext User(Craig Welch)
25-01-2008, 02:33 PM
Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:

>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>
>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>
>>>From
>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>
>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>get her job back.
>>
>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>character of its employees?

Moral standards that might cause damage to the employer, such as
dishonesty.

>Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
>not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").

I shall re-phrase that as 'in this instance'.

--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/

Ext User(Horry)
25-01-2008, 02:44 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:21:41 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>
>>>>From
>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>
>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>>get her job back.
>>>
>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>
>>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>character of its employees?
>
> Moral standards that might cause damage to the employer, such as
> dishonesty.

Do you mean financial damage (e.g., an employee dishonestly claiming
overtime for work not performed), or public relations damage (e.g., an
employee dishonestly claiming 62 separate Centrelink pensions under 62
fraudulent identities while all the time working for the company)?

Or both?

Ext User(Horry)
25-01-2008, 02:44 PM
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:40:33 +1030, Horry wrote:

>> and it didn't happen during work or at work, so what FUCKING
>> business was it of Tel$tra anyway?
>
> See my response to Dave.

My response to Dave is only in aus.comms.mobile.

For some reason he removed the crosspost to aus.comms.

Ext User(Rod Speed)
25-01-2008, 04:33 PM
Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> dave wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>> From
>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html

>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp
>>>>> at a Sydney hotel after a work Christmas party, has lost
>>>>> the right to receive compensation and get her job back.

>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards
>>> as to the moral character of its employees?

>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work ?

> Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour
> by employees can reflect poorly on a company.

Too bad. That does NOT give them the legal
right to control what employees do in their own time.

> Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral
> standards on its employees? Because it's paying them.

Wrong. That does NOT give the employer the right to have any
say whatever in what the employee does in their own time.

> Companies regularly impose conditions on their
> employees' behaviour outside working hours.

Not with legal activity without paying them more so they are for example available etc.

> For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
> remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.

Different matter entirely.

> Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.

But cant legally have a no grog or no smoking policy.

> Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?

For the same reason they cant tell you you have to attend church etc.

Or that you cant be in favor of a republic, or spruik for the labor party etc.

> After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular employer.

Irrelevant to whether the employer has any legal right
to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own time.

>> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.

> I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a
> service-oriented business owner whose employees got caught red-handed
> by the Daily Telegraph after your work Christmas party engaging in
> some engaging in some group scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.

Thats their problem legally.

> Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the
> Australian equivalent of NAMBLA.

> Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.

Or if you decide to advocate Greens policy without breaking the law.

The employer gets to like it or lump it, legally.

> You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick smart.

Wrong, as always and whether he cares or not is completely irrelevant
to what the law allows the employer to have any say what so ever on.

Ext User(Craig Welch)
25-01-2008, 04:43 PM
Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:21:41 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>From
>>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>>>get her job back.
>>>>
>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>
>>>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>character of its employees?
>>
>> Moral standards that might cause damage to the employer, such as
>> dishonesty.
>
>Do you mean financial damage (e.g., an employee dishonestly claiming
>overtime for work not performed), or public relations damage (e.g., an
>employee dishonestly claiming 62 separate Centrelink pensions under 62
>fraudulent identities while all the time working for the company)?
>
>Or both?

The former.


--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/

Ext User(Kwyjibo)
25-01-2008, 07:53 PM
"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oxqg9wor51ah$.1vha758j847ii$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:13 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>From
>>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney
>>>>>hotel
>>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive
>>>>>compensation
>>>>>and
>>>>>get her job back.
>>>>
>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>
>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>> character of its employees?
>>
>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
>> have
>> been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be
>> measured
>> against?
>
> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a company (be
> it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John Smith & Son
> Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to
what they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of
'morals'.

> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with
> any specificity).

It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure someone
against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
Conduct" or similar statement. AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people
having sex outside of working hours.

--
Kwyj.

Ext User(Spokes)
26-01-2008, 01:27 AM
On Jan 25, 12:29*am, "Alan Parkington"
<alan.parking...@team.telstra.com> wrote:
> Fromhttp://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,....
>
> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
> after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
> get her job back.
>
> Carlie Streeter was sacked from her job at a Miranda Telstra store in
> February last year after an investigation into a night of alcohol-fuelled
> sex and partying with colleagues.
>
> Telstra accused Ms Streeter of having sex with a male employee in the bath
> tub of a hotel room at Cronulla's Rydges Hotel.
>
> It was alleged another male employee was in the bath tub at the time when
> the trio was interrupted by a female employee.
>
> The two former male colleagues - Steve Hatzistergos and Aakash Sharma - also
> lost their jobs over the scandal, along with another unnamed employee.
>
> Bosses were alerted to the incident after another female employee made
> complaints about Ms Streeter's behaviour on the night to a store manager.
>
> Ms Streeter subsequently appealed against her dismissal and won her case.
>
> But yesterday, Telstra won its own appeal against the ruling made in the
> Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which had ordered the
> telco giant to reinstate Ms Streeter and pay her compensation for lost
> earnings.
>
> The successful appeal means Telstra has no obligation to give Ms Streeter
> her job back or pay her compensation.
>
> The decision, handed down by a full bench of the AIRC, ruled Ms Streeter's
> termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
>
> A Telstra spokeswoman last night said that Telstra welcomed the decision.
>
> "We are pleased the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have upheld
> our appeal," she said.
>
> The sex-romp scandal ignited debate about the right of employers to sack
> workers for bad behaviour while off the job.
>
> In September last year a worker sacked by Allianz Australia Services,
> following a drunken after-hours trivia night, won the right to a full bench
> rehearing of his claim in the AIRC.
>
> The AIRC had previously thrown out his unfair dismissal case, which followed
> his sacking for threatening a manager with physical and sexual assault.
>
> Ms Streeter has kept a low profile since her sexual exploits were revealed
> by The Daily Telegraph in August.
>
> Her lawyer Kelly Durant yesterday said his client was upset by the
> commission's ruling and was keen to discuss whether she could launch a
> further appeal in the Federal Court.
>
> "Ms Streeter is unhappy about the decision and feels like justice hasn't
> been served. This has been a long fight," he said.
>
> "She understands that these are matters of law. But she's quite aggrieved by
> the decision."

Large companies expect the company code of conduct be respected by
employees at company events and functions outside hours. The code can
often extend to company funded accommodation used by employees such as
hotel rooms.
Whilst the incident is basically about a bunch of young adults letting
their hair down after a night out on company expense, it became
unstuck when the other, possibly uninvited, female walked into the
bathroom. there may be more than meets the eye here. if the hedonistic
mob were more discreet in their activities, it would've remained in
company folklore only discussed in smoking areas outside the workplace.

Ext User(Arrrgh!)
26-01-2008, 05:53 PM
Again you prove what pricks are in management at Telstra.

"Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote in message
news:fp0mj.6703$421.5756@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> From
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,00.html
>
> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
> after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation
> and get her job back.
>
> Carlie Streeter was sacked from her job at a Miranda Telstra store in
> February last year after an investigation into a night of alcohol-fuelled
> sex and partying with colleagues.
>
> Telstra accused Ms Streeter of having sex with a male employee in the bath
> tub of a hotel room at Cronulla's Rydges Hotel.
>
> It was alleged another male employee was in the bath tub at the time when
> the trio was interrupted by a female employee.
>
> The two former male colleagues - Steve Hatzistergos and Aakash Sharma -
> also lost their jobs over the scandal, along with another unnamed
> employee.
>
> Bosses were alerted to the incident after another female employee made
> complaints about Ms Streeter's behaviour on the night to a store manager.
>
> Ms Streeter subsequently appealed against her dismissal and won her case.
>
> But yesterday, Telstra won its own appeal against the ruling made in the
> Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which had ordered the
> telco giant to reinstate Ms Streeter and pay her compensation for lost
> earnings.
>
> The successful appeal means Telstra has no obligation to give Ms Streeter
> her job back or pay her compensation.
>
> The decision, handed down by a full bench of the AIRC, ruled Ms Streeter's
> termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
>
> A Telstra spokeswoman last night said that Telstra welcomed the decision.
>
> "We are pleased the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have upheld
> our appeal," she said.
>
> The sex-romp scandal ignited debate about the right of employers to sack
> workers for bad behaviour while off the job.
>
> In September last year a worker sacked by Allianz Australia Services,
> following a drunken after-hours trivia night, won the right to a full
> bench rehearing of his claim in the AIRC.
>
> The AIRC had previously thrown out his unfair dismissal case, which
> followed his sacking for threatening a manager with physical and sexual
> assault.
>
> Ms Streeter has kept a low profile since her sexual exploits were revealed
> by The Daily Telegraph in August.
>
> Her lawyer Kelly Durant yesterday said his client was upset by the
> commission's ruling and was keen to discuss whether she could launch a
> further appeal in the Federal Court.
>
> "Ms Streeter is unhappy about the decision and feels like justice hasn't
> been served. This has been a long fight," he said.
>
> "She understands that these are matters of law. But she's quite aggrieved
> by the decision."
>
>