Unfair job loss over high-roller refund
A Skycity Entertainment Group worker has won his job back after being fired over a mix-up with a customer who was betting millions of dollars.
A foreign visitor was playing baccarat in one of the Auckland casino’s individual gambling salons, reserved for highvalue customers, in the morning of February 17, 2016.
She had been gambling there for nine days. Employment Court judge Mark Perkins said it was estimated she had lost anything from $9.5 million to $12m.
During a shift briefing, table games trainer Keith Hayashi was told that the table limit for a baccarat ‘‘any pair’’ side bet had been reduced from $10,000 to $5000 in one of the salons.
He, and other workers, mistakenly believed it applied to the one in which the woman was playing.
When someone has been betting above the maximum, they are entitled to a refund of the extra bet, minus any winnings. In this case, that worked out to $310,400.
Skycity argued that Hayashi approached the woman and told her she should get a refund, and how much. He disagreed with that assertion and said she was also told by the table games area manager. His version of events was corroborated by others.
When it was discovered that her limit had not changed, and she was not due a refund, the situation became difficult. The player demanded the money and was later given it as a goodwill gesture.
Hayashi was dismissed and the Employment Relations Authority backed Skycity. He then took his case to the Employment Court.
Correspondence between the company’s chief executive and president of international business made it clear that someone would take the fall for the payout, Perkins said, and it ended up being Hayashi.
While giving evidence, the table games manager told the court it was fair to describe those involved as ‘‘running for cover’’.
Hayashi wanted his job back – saying he was near retirement and it would be hard to find another role. He also asked for reimbursement for lost income, compensation for hurt and humiliation of $25,000 and costs.
The Employment Court granted him those requests, but reserved costs.