Employee resigned during theft investigation and later recanted, but evidence pointed to guilt
A postal employee who quit after being accused of stealing money has been denied a chance to rescind her resignation.
Ruby Sapra, 38, was a supervisor for Canada Post at a delivery centre in Mississauga, Ont. She first joined the corporation in 2001 and worked her way up to her supervisor position.
On Sept. 18, 2008, one of Sapra’s co-workers discovered that $200 was missing from her purse, which was in a container under her desk. The co-worker recalled that Sapra had seen her take the purse out to get some money, and therefore knew where she kept it. The co-worker reported the theft to her supervisor. About one month later, the same co-worker discovered $50 was missing from her purse and again reported it.
On Jan. 21, 2009, Sapra’s supervisor came back from a meeting to find the drawer where she kept her handbag open. All but $20 out of $500 she had withdrawn from the bank earlier that day had been taken. She learned from the co-worker that in the previous thefts, a small amount of money had also been left. The supervisor recalled Sapra had observed her retrieve her handbag from the drawer earlier.
Sting operation
The supervisor discussed the situation with a postal inspector and they decided to prepare some money with purple theft detection powder and plant it in the supervisor’s handbag as well as Sapra’s co-worker’s purse.
On Feb. 3, 2009, the supervisor made sure Sapra was aware she was going to a meeting for about 45 minutes. When the supervisor returned, she checked her handbag and found that $50 was missing. The co-worker noticed Sapra was rubbing her hands, which appeared to be chapped, as if from vigorous washing. The co-worker also noticed specks of purplish colour and a large purple stain on Sapra’s shirt.
The supervisor and inspector came to Sapra’s desk and noticed her hands were red and she was rubbing them. She also seemed nervous. The inspector and a corporate security officer met with Sapra and asked her if she had taken the missing money. Sapra denied any knowledge of it and said the stains on her shirt were from a broken pen. Sapra emptied her pockets and had $300 on her, but none of the serial numbers matched the missing money.
Sapra then explained the stain on her shirt was from spilling curry on it the previous day.
Sapra reiterated her denial to a union representative, who informed her she could be suspended or terminated, or she could resign. The representative advised against resigning if Sapra didn’t do it. However, the representative saw a small stain on Sapra’s cellphone and the stains on her shirt. At this point, she no longer believed the denials.
Later that day, the corporate security officer found purple finger prints on Sapra’s calendar, telephone and keyboard. A washroom search revealed purple stains on a sink and on a paper towel in the garbage.
The police were called and a constable interviewed Sapra. Sapra continued to deny stealing the money and at one point started doodling on her calendar over the purple spots and trying to rub out the stains on her shirt by moistening her fingers.
Sapra thought she was going to be arrested and taken to jail and she felt the only way she would be able to leave was to resign. She decided to tender her resignation and shortly thereafter Canada Post accepted the resignation.
Employee claimed resignation was under duress
The next day, Sapra realized that she shouldn’t have resigned and that she had made the decision while under duress. She contacted the union and asked it to seek to rescind her resignation with a grievance. Canada Post refused to rescind the resignation, arguing it was voluntary and halted the theft investigation.
The arbitrator found there was no evidence that Sapra was under any medical impairment or that she didn’t know what she was doing when she resigned. She discussed her options with her union representatives and Canada Post wasn’t involved. It was likely the decision to resign was “a clear and calculated decision” to avoid charges and further sanctions for the theft. The presence of the police officer and the chance of charges did not detract from her ability to form the subjective intent to resign, said the arbitrator.
However, the arbitrator also found Sapra did not have a continuing intent to resign. She contacted her union the next day for help to undo her mistake. It was reasonable to contact the union rather than Canada Post because Canada Post “were the very people who, the previous day, had accused her of theft,” said the arbitrator. As a result, the arbitrator found Sapra did not resign her position.
On the other hand, the arbitrator ruled Canada Post had just cause to terminate Sapra’s employment. The arbitrator found Sapra’s denials lacked credibility and she likely stole the money. There was no broken pen to be found — nor did she make any attempt to find it — curry stains on her shirt would have been yellow, and she had no explanation for the purple marks at her desk. In addition, her doodling on the calendar and wiping of her stains were a “desperate effort” to conceal the evidence, which was consistent with the purple powder on the stolen money, said the arbitrator.
