Worker denied stealing juice from cafeteria despite evidence showing otherwise
An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of an Ontario worker who stole juice from the company cafeteria on multiple occasions.
The 42-year-old worker was employed with Messier-Dowty, a manufacturer of aircraft landing gear in Ajax, Ont. He was hired in 1997. The company had a cafeteria at its facility that it subsidized so it ran on a break-even basis. Employees either paid for their items up front or ran a tab that was settled at the end of each week.
In mid-December 2014, another employee informed Messier-Dowty’s human resources manager that the worker had been eating soup and drinking juice from the cafeteria without paying for it. The HR manager spoke to the chef, who said he was “sort of aware” of the situation but had been too busy to deal with it. In addition, the refrigerator where the juice and other drinks were kept was out of the sight for cafeteria staff. The chef and the cashier were told to keep track of the worker’s purchases.
On Dec. 16, the HR manager observed the worker leaving the cafeteria. The chef told him the worker had removed an orange juice from the refrigerator as he left, which he had not paid for. A check of the purchase showed no juice on the bill, but the HR manager saw a juice bottle on the worker’s desk with the other items he had bought for lunch.
The next day, the HR manager saw the worker walk by with a meal package, coffee and a juice. When he checked the cashier, he discovered the worker had purchased the meal and coffee but no juice.
On Dec. 18, the worker was leaving the cafeteria with a meal package, coffee and juice. He saw the HR manager, held up the juice bottle and motioned to the cashier to add it to his tab. The cashier said the worker had never done that before.
On Dec. 19, the worker was observed by another employee with a meal, coffee and juice but had only paid for the meal and coffee. That same day, the HR manager convened an investigation interview with the worker.
The worker seemed surprised that he was being accused of taking things from the cafeteria without paying. He denied stealing anything and said he was on a tab. As the interview continued, the worker became evasive and suggested the cafeteria staff had made mistakes with his tab, the chef was a crook, and he was being set up.
The HR manager spoke to the chef and cashier and they both said the worker had never brought a juice to the cash register. A review of his tabs showed he had paid for one bottle of juice in the previous two weeks.
On Dec. 22, the HR manager informed the worker’s supervisor and Messier-Dowty’s vice-president of production about the matter. They agreed that workplace theft was a serious breach of trust, especially since the worker denied it and tried to blame others. Though the worker had 17 years of service with a clean disciplinary record, there was indication of multiple instances of theft, which made dismissal automatic in the eyes of the employer. The next day, the worker was dismissed for “a very serious breach of your employee obligations, namely the obligation to be honest and the company’s need to be able to trust you.”
At the dismissal meeting, the union president spoke privately with the worker and told him he was being dismissed not for theft, but for not admitting to it or showing remorse. The worker continued to deny and rationalize his misconduct, and the union president told him there would be no chance of reinstatement if he didn’t “come clean.” The worker changed his attitude and, when they met with management again, apologized. However, management didn’t accept that he was truly remorseful and stuck with the dismissal.
The arbitrator noted that discharge was “the most severe form of workplace discipline” and “workplace theft is universally considered to be a serious employment offence which merits a significant disciplinary response.” However, this didn’t mean theft should automatically lead to discharge, but depended on how serious it was, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found the most important factors were “those which speak to the employee’s character and trust rehabilitation potential.” In this case, the worker had engaged in at least three separate acts of “premeditated petty theft” in four days, he denied any wrongdoing and continued to deny up until he knew he was going to lose his job, he refused to “come clean” until officially terminated, and he tried to deflect the blame.
Though the worker had a clean discipline record, the arbitrator found this was likely because he hadn’t previously been caught stealing, as others were aware of his behaviour and the number of times he did it in the short period of time he was being observed. In addition, the fact he acted normally while doing it suggested it was “business as usual” when stealing the juice, said the arbitrator.
