‘Prawnstar’ Dealer Loses Case Against Crown Resorts
A dealer at Crown Casino in Melbourne has claimed he was unfairly dismissed by the casino. Harkirat Singh claimed he was bullied for uploading a bawdy homemade hip-hop track he titled “Pornostar” to the official Facebook page of the casino. Following his dismissal, he filed an unfair dismissal claim. Unfortunately for him, he lost his claim for unfair dismissal.
Singh complained to his manager after the video came out in 2018. He mentioned that his colleagues constantly mocked his video, leaving him upset and unable to work. Singh was fired for refusing to work and arguing with his manager.
Australia’s Fair Work Commission heard that Singh posted a link of his new music video on the Facebook group used by Crown employees to change shifts.
Singh didn’t expect what came next.
Singh took offense at one comment in particular under the video. The comment used emojis of a prawn and star. This birthed the nickname “Prawnstar” at work.
Crown management was quick to issue a written warning to Singh for his actions relating to the video. Earlier, Singh had previously been reprimanded for a different issue.
But things went out of hand on November 2, 2018, following an incident with a dealer. According to Singh, a dealer called him a “Prawnstar,” thus leaving him “too stressed to deal.”
According to Australia’s Fair Work Commission filings, the dealer in question denied calling Singh a prawn star.
On taking the issue to the manager, things got heat, and Singh ended up calling his manager a “little girl in a suit” who was “abusing her power.”
“Dealers are calling me Prawnstar without any fear, and the management is taking action against me instead of handling my complaint,” Singh later lamented. “I have only become a joker in the company so far. Again, the same thing happened, [I] raised an issue, and I was the one who got suspended for 10 days for inappropriate workplace behavior.”
But Australia’s Fair Work Commission deputy president Janine Young did not find Crown’s decision to dismiss Singh had not been “harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.”
“Mr. Singh has not at any stage, including during the hearing, demonstrated any understanding that it is a fundamental obligation of an employee to comply with the lawful and reasonable directions of his employer,” she wrote.
“He has steadfastly held to the view that he has been victimized for making a complaint. I consider his behavior on November 2, 2018, to be not only repudiatory but also baffling and unreasonable,” she added.