Mail carrier fired for involvement in delivering flyers for side business on company time
Going under the table on company time
Many jobs require a certain level of trust and responsibility for employers to place in the hands of employees. Employees of Canada Post fall under that umbrella, as individuals and organizations place their item in their care. The corporation itself must trust the employees to handle the mail and, like many employers, perform their work to the benefit of the employer’s overall business.
When an employee uses the employer’s resources for personal gain and at potential cost to the employer, there can be a serious breach of trust that could endanger the employment relationship — as well as the employee’s employment.
The dismissal of a Canada Post carrier who had flyers for his private business distributed by other carriers has been upheld by an arbitrator.
Grant Wittevrongel was a rural and suburban mail carrier (RSMC) for Canada Post in South Winnipeg since 1999. In addition to his employment with the corporation, Wittevrongel was also involved with a roofing company for which he solicited estimated jobs fixing the roofs of homes. He often delivered or arranged for the delivery of flyers advertising the roofing company to homes that needed work on their roofs. He received a commission for these jobs once they were completed.
Requests to distribute flyers
On May 21, 2010, Wittevrongel asked another RSMC who had only been with Canada Post for six months to place flyers in community mailboxes (CMBs) while working a route that the co-worker was covering for another carrier. According to the co-worker, Wittevrongel said it was “no big deal” and the co-worker didn’t realize there was anything wrong with it, so he got some flyers from Wittevrongel’s truck. Wittevrongel asked the co-worker to put the flyers in boxes where the houses needed new roofs. The next day, the regular RSMC on the route noticed the flyers in the CMBs and reported it to a supervisor, who investigated and found out about Wittevrongel’s request to his co-worker. Wittevrongel denied making the request and said the co-worker had approached him to deliver the flyers for some extra money. He also claimed he never expected the flyers to be delivered on company time, though he stated any wrongdoing of which he was guilty didn’t warrant dismissal but rather lesser discipline.
Ten days later, Wittevrongel approached another RSMC and asked him to deliver some flyers “under the table” rather than through Canada Post on the RSMC’s route, which had several homes undergoing renovations. The other RSMC refused, knowing that it was against Canada Post policy and he didn’t want to get into trouble. The other RSMC reported this incident to a supervisor, but Wittevrongel denied he intended for the RSMC to deliver the flyers on his route. Wittevrongel claimed his intention was to have the flyers delivered on the weekend in the other RSMC’s neighbourhood for $50, and the other RSMC made a mistaken assumption.
A route audit on June 2, 2010, revealed 25 of the roofing company’s flyers inside CMBs on the route of another carrier who was a friend of Wittevrongel's and a customer on the route told them she had received a flyer on May 31. The carrier denied she delivered the flyers but admitted she tossed her corporate keys to Wittevrongel at the end of a shift on May 31, with the expectation he would put them in the overnight box with his own. It was Canada Post policy that RSMCs must deposit their keys in the overnight box and not take them home at night, though it was not mandatory as long as the key log was kept up to date. However, the carrier could not say for sure that Wittevrongel did so and a check of the key log showed the carrier’s keys were not in the box the next morning.
Canada Post determined Wittevrongel had either convinced his friend to deliver the flyers or had taken her keys and delivered them on her route himself. Wittevrongel denied any knowledge on how the flyers had gotten into the CMBs and said he had deposited both her keys and his in the box. He had no explanation as to why the key log showed his friend’s keys weren’t in the box. After this incident, the policy for keys in the box became mandatory.
The newer carrier was given just a warning because he was apologetic and wasn’t aware he had done anything wrong. Wittevrongel’s friend was suspended for five days for failing to secure corporate keys, and Wittevrongel was dismissed for one count of evasion of postage -- for taking advantage of a new employee and getting him to deliver the flyers -- and another count of attempting to induct mail without postage -- for asking the other RSMC who refused to deliver flyers.
Canada Post felt dismissal was appropriate because arranging to have admail delivered without postage paid on company time was effectively stealing from the corporation. This deprived Canada Post of revenue, of which admail was a very important part, particularly during tough economic times. Wittevrongel’s denials and attempts to downplay his misconduct added to the breakdown of trust as well. In addition, Wittevrongel had previously been suspended for three days due to non-delivery of mail in April 2010. The corporation also felt with his tenure of service, Wittevrongel should have known better than to try to circumvent Canada Post policies.
Experienced employee should know better: Arbitrator
The arbitrator found despite Wittevrongel’s protests, it was evident he knew that postage for admail must be properly paid. When the May 21 incident was brought to his attention, Wittevrongel stressed it didn’t warrant dismissal, and it came shortly after he served a suspension. Combined with his 11 years of service, he had to have known he was crossing the line, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also had other issues with Wittevrongel’s claims. The claim that the newer RSMC came to him to make extra money didn’t make sense, since neither discussed an amount. The only mention of payment was with the offer he made the other carrier who refused him. Also, there was no discussion of where the newer RSMC should deliver the flyers, which made no sense, since Wittevrongel was supposed to identify and target specific areas to distribute the flyers.
In addition, Wittevrongel’s denials of any knowledge of how the flyers got into CMBs on his friend’s route didn’t make sense. He possessed the flyers and it was his job to distribute them for the roofing company. There was no reason someone else at Canada Post – with access to the particular corporate keys – would take the flyers and put them in CMBs, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator stated that the employer is entitled to receive “a full, honest and satisfactory explanation from an employee” when it is investigating misconduct. Wittevrongel’s explanations fell short of this standard, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found that there was not enough evidence to support discipline for the brief conversation on May 31 where Wittevrongel made the request of the other experienced RSMC who refused him. However, the arbitrator found he was culpable for the May 21 incident with the newer RSMC and the incident with his friend’s route, regardless of how much it damaged Canada Post’s bottom line.
“On two discrete occasions, (Wittevrongel) used Canada Post resources to pursue his own personal gain,” said the arbitrator. “Regardless of the gross amount of unpaid postage, the offence was significant because of the threat posed to the security of the corporation’s mail system, beyond the lost revenue. Moreover, tolerance of widespread small scale theft has the potential to grow into a substantial revenue loss.”
The arbitrator found that the amount of lost revenue for Canada Post from Wittevrongel’s misconduct was minor, but his pattern of deliberate and planned dishonesty was very serious and he showed no remorse, other than “regret that everyone was inconvenienced due to unfounded assumptions” about his intentions. Wittevrongel’s dismissal was upheld.
“Canada Post needs employees who protect its business, not employees who take advantage of the trust reposed in them and cheat the employer for their own profit,” said the arbitrator.
For more information see:
