Alberta worker suggested another employee stole cheques, accessed her phone
An Alberta arbitrator has upheld the termination of a health care aide for stealing cheques from a resident and depositing them into her account.
The 31-year-old worker was a health care aide (HCA) hired in 2014 by Alberta Health Services (AHS) to work at the Willow Creek Continuing Care Centre, a residential care home in Claresholm, Alta., for people with long-term health problems. Most residents are elderly and have conditions such as dementia.
The worker, like most HCAs at Willow Creek, was assigned eight to 10 residents for which she would provide assistance in their daily care. During the workday, she stored her belongings in a storage room with those of other employees who didn’t have their own lockers.
One of the residents for whom the worker cared was referred to as RB. On May 14, 2018, the RB’s daughter emailed Willow Creek management to report that she had been monitoring her father’s bank accounts and over the previous five weeks, five cheques had been cashed from his account, with the name of ‘cash’ in his cheque book. The cheques totalled $3,625. The daughter, who lived in the U.S., had asked a long-time friend of her father’s to ask him if he had signed any cheques, to which her father had said no. As a result, she had requested that the bank investigate and had filed a police report.
Willow Creek management obtained copies of the cheques and confirmed that they weren’t in RB’s handwriting. They decided to wait until the bank and the police completed their investigations before taking further action.
Worker charged with theft
In June 2018, the police informed AHS that they believed that the worker had stolen the funds from RB’s account and had charged her with a criminal offence. AHS put the worker on paid administrative leave pending its own investigation. It also reminded her that, under its own employment practices policy, that she had “an ongoing duty to disclose any criminal charge or conviction” and a failure to do so could result in discipline up to and including dismissal. It demanded documentation on the charges and any other information she thought AHS should consider in reviewing them by June 15.
The worker said she had only found out about the cheques being deposited to her account when the bank had frozen it.
The worker provided information showing that she had been charged with fraud under $5,000 and had agreed until the resolution of the matter to abstain from communicating with RB or going to Willow Creek except to visit her grandmother, who was a resident.
In an investigation meeting, the worker denied writing the cheques and said she had only found out about them being deposited to her account when the bank had frozen it — she said she had been dealing with a serious illness in the family and she normally only checked her balance before making a big purchase because she didn’t keep much money in the account. She said she left her purse in the storage room regularly, with her phone inside it. Her phone wasn’t password-protected and she had her passwords on her phone, so she suggested another employee had accessed her phone and deposited the cheques with photos of them — though she didn’t offer any names.
Management didn’t believe the worker’s explanation, as the storage room was a high-traffic area and it was unlikely someone would be able to take the time to get the worker’s phone, access her passwords and deposit the cheques in a busy room. In addition, the worker said she got along well with everybody, so it didn’t make sense that someone would go to so much effort to frame her.
The worker said she could provide additional evidence that it wasn’t her, so AHS gave her a couple of weeks to provide it. However, the worker didn’t provide any other documentation or suggested any names of who might have done it. She also didn’t offer to return the money.
AHS terminated the worker’s employment on July 19 for theft of a resident’s cheques, failing to be honest and forthcoming in the investigation, and demonstrating a lack of insight or remorse into her conduct. It emphasized the need for “the utmost level of trust in your ability to execute your duties with the safety and trust of our patients and clients at the forefront” and that she had breached that trust, irreparably damaging the employment relationship.
The worker grieved her dismissal, arguing that AHS did not have just cause for dismissal. She and the union argued that the evidence was circumstantial and her termination had a serious effect on her emotional state. In addition, because it was a small town, everyone knew about it and she was shunned by friends and family.
Evidence of theft not circumstantial
The arbitrator found that the evidence was clear — and the worker admitted — that five of RB’s cheques totalling $3,625 were deposited into the worker’s bank account. This wasn’t circumstantial evidence, but rather direct evidence that someone stole the cheques and deposited them. It was the identity of the person who did it that was circumstantial, said the arbitrator.
Given the circumstances, the onus was on the worker to provide a plausible explanation as to how it couldn’t have been her who did it. However, she couldn’t do so. The worker said she only checked her account balance when she made large purchases, but the bank records showed she had made several such purchases during the time in question. In addition, there was more money in the account than she claimed.
“It is highly unusual for five cheques to be deposited into a person’s bank account by someone else who used that person’s cellphone to make those deposits,” said the arbitrator. “It is equally unusual for that person not to notice those deposits into their account over the course of about six weeks.”
The arbitrator also found that AHS handled the investigation properly. It was reasonable to wait until the police and the bank completed their investigations and the investigation interviewed the worker and other employees. After hearing the worker’s explanation, AHS offered her the opportunity to provide more evidence for it to consider, but she didn’t do so. In addition, it didn’t need to explore the possibility of someone else stealing the cheques as the evidence pointed to the worker and the worker didn’t provide any names of other possible suspects.
The arbitrator determined that the only plausible conclusion was that the worker stole the cheques and deposited them into her account. It was misconduct that took considerable planning and was repeated over several weeks, and she denied any wrongdoing throughout the investigation and hearing. Although she hadn’t received any previous discipline, the dishonesty and breach of trust the theft involved justified skipping progressive discipline and going right to termination, said the arbitrator in dismissing the grievance.
For more information, see:
- AUPE and Alberta Health Services (Robertson), Re, [2021] A.W.L.D. 3470 (Alta. Arb.).
