Canada Post employee fired for theft

A postmaster with the Canada Post Corporation referred to as Employee D was fired after admittedly stealing some $500 from her employer.

While the employee did not deny she misappropriated the funds, her union — the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association — argued there were mitigating circumstances that justified her reinstatement.

The employee began working as a postmaster in a small town outside of Sudbury, Ont., in August 2008. In August 2010, management visited the site to investigate the employee’s recent absences as well as reports of missing money. When a supervisor visited the office it was discovered $66 was missing from the office safe and a further $130 was missing from the till.

When confronted about the money, Employee D admitted she had taken it. She was suspended while the employer investigated the incident.

According to Employee D, she had needed the money to purchase necessities — including diapers for her children — and planned to repay the money as soon as her next paycheque arrived. She told management her partner was physically, mentally, emotionally and financially abusive. While she was the breadwinner of the family, she explained, her boyfriend controlled her income.

Additionally, the employee admitted she and her partner struggled with addiction. With no access to her income and struggling with drugs, the employee explained, she had been forced to take money from Canada Post in order to make ends meet.

The union argued for Employee D’s reinstatement, saying that after ending her relationship with both her partner and drugs, there was no one and nothing in her life that would cause her to repeat her past mistakes. The union further argued Employee D was honest with the employer when confronted with the missing money and was genuinely sorry for what she had done.

The union emphasized Employee D did not seek compensation for wages or benefits lost and she would accept any conditions imposed on her return to work, including drug testing.

Counsel for the employer, however, said it was clear Employee D knew what she was doing was wrong, despite her alleged drug use. With respect to her difficult personal circumstances, the employer argued they were not sufficient mitigating circumstances to justify the reinstatement of an admitted thief.

The postmaster is generally viewed as a pillar of the community, the employer argued, and must be trustworthy as employees in the position work with little to no supervision when handling Canada Post’s funds.

Furthermore, the employer asked arbitrator Michel Picher to consider Employee D’s limited service. She had worked for the employer for only a few short years, including 19 months of maternity leave.

"I have no doubt about the tragic and difficult circumstances of the grievor’s personal life," Picher said.

"The difficulty I have with the fundamental position asserted by the association is to accept that her conscious and repeated acts of theft can be understood or excused on the basis of her admitted personal stresses and ongoing drug use."