CINCINNATI (AP) — An assistant manager at an Arby’s in southwestern Ohio was fired after an attempted armed robbery at the fast-food restaurant because management says she had repeatedly violated company policy to never be alone after hours.
Police said today that Mary Archer had sent the last employee home after midnight Friday when a man armed with a knife came into the Arby’s in Fairborn.
Fairborn police Sgt. Paul Hicks says Archer told officers that when the man demanded money, she pushed him and jumped out of the drive-thru window while screaming.
The man fled and hasn’t been found. Archer wasn’t hurt.
A statement from Arby’s Restaurant Group says Archer was fired for repeatedly violating the after-hours policy, and considers the safety of their employees and guests “to be of utmost importance.”
Comments
When I was 15 and got my first job at McDonald's we had plenty of left over food at the end of the night. At first we were giving it away to the homeless who'd come at closing. Then we got a directive straight from McDonalds corporate HQ telling us to discontinue and to dispose of the food.
That's how much they care.
That isn't food @LtMacGowan. Need to see the SuperSize me movie and other experiments of taking McDonald's food and leaving it out for eons and how it doesn't break down and decay.
Inside job?
Sounds like it !
> >Archer was fired for violating after-hours policy, and considers the safety of their employees and guests “to be of utmost importance.” < <
If it was after hours, there were probably no "guests" there and few if any other employees.
Sounds like Arby's just wanted an excuse to get her out.
No Joe, most companys do not let there employees stay in the building by themselves before opening and after closing. I have worked for a few company's and that was there policy. She should have been fired for violating the policy. I was the store mgr at several big name retailers and I was not allowed in the building by myself. They are looking out for the safety of the employee.
@harleydog :
It is not the "safety" issue but rather limiting liability of the employer.
@joe, I also agree with that point, but it is a safety issue for the employee.
@ harleydog:
That could well be in many circumstances.