Arbitrator concludes employment relationship 'irreparably harmed and no longer viable"
A cook with almost 10 years of service and a clean disciplinary record lost his job, his grievance, and his entitlement to notice and severance recently in arbitration.
In a Feb. 19, 2026 decision, arbitrator Lindsay Lawrence upheld the termination of the cook at Glynnwood Retirement Residence in Thornhill, Ont., finding just cause for dismissal after he was caught on camera taking food from the kitchen and concealing an item under his apron.
His denial of any wrongdoing — maintained from the disciplinary interview through to the final hearing — proved fatal to his case.
Theft captured on camera
On Dec. 16, 2022, video footage at the retirement home captured the cook taking seven scoops of mashed potatoes onto a Styrofoam plate during the first dinner seating. He then walked to another table in the kitchen, covered the plate with a second plate, and wrapped them together in saran wrap.
Later that evening, he entered the walk-in freezer and exited with something in his hand, covered with his apron, adjusting it to more fully cover the item as he walked down the hallway toward the staff room.
The following day, a co-worker reported to culinary manager having seen the cook take a bag of food. The manager brought the matter to the executive director, who had access to the residence's video cameras. The two reviewed the footage together and placed the book on paid administrative leave while they conducted an investigation.
Denial of workplace theft
The cook maintained that he took the potatoes under the staff meal plan, having run out of time to eat during his shift. He claimed the freezer item was a chicken carcass he had permission to take home for a friend's dog.
The manager denied ever granting that permission and testified that chicken carcasses did not exist at the facility. Whole chickens were roasted and cut into eight pieces; soup was made with pre-made stock. A high-volume commercial kitchen like the one at the residence "did not play around with bones."
The manager testified that staff meals were to be eaten on shift, at work, and in the staff room, and that food could be taken home only on rare occasions and only with his express permission. A Staff Food and Beverage Agreement signed by the cook required him to "eat or drink only those items which have been approved for the staff," though the arbitrator did not base the decision on its contents.
Why sorry would have mattered
Lawrence acknowledged that the cook had almost 10 years of seniority and a clean record at the time of his termination, and that the monetary value of what was taken was small. However, Lawrence found these insufficient to warrant a lesser penalty.
The cook had not admitted doing anything wrong, had taken no responsibility for his actions, and had shown no remorse. Lawrence concluded that "the employment relationship is irreparably harmed and no longer viable" and declined to reinstate him.
The award also rejected the union's argument for notice and severance under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Lawrence found the conduct to be a breach of trust, compounded by the fact that Vaseeharan was in a position where he was responsible for portioning and plating food for others.
