The grievor had been talked into faking an invoice to help a colleague out of a jam. The arbitrator found the offence deserved discipline, but a one-day suspension and not termination. Further, a strong response was not necessary for deterrence and the employment relationship had not been broken.
An auto mechanic was fired for time theft after he agreed to participate in some administrative sleight of hand to correct a faulty work order.
R.B. worked as a service technician at an auto dealership. There was no discipline on his record when he was fired on March 1, 2011 after 17 years’ service.
On Feb. 16, 2011, R.B. was given a work order to perform some recall work on a vehicle under warranty. However, it was explained to R.B. he was just being asked to “run time” on the work order.
In fact, the work had already been performed on the vehicle, which was no longer even in the shop.
A problem had surfaced when it was discovered the original work order was compromised. The service agent had written the wrong Vehicle Identification Number on the original work order. R.B. was being asked to “run time” to create a new work order that could be used to represent the work that had already been done.
R.B. was uncomfortable with the request. He had never done anything like that in his 17 years. He took the work order from the expediter and went to talk to the service agent who had prepared the work order. She explained the situation to R.B.
Ran time
R.B. agreed to help out. While he was working on other jobs, R.B. “ran time” on the work order, adding appropriate comments and time stickers. He submitted the work order and was paid $56.18 for his time.
Questions about the work orders surfaced in late February. The service agent was fired. Further investigations by the employer revealed R.B.’s involvement. He was called into an informal meeting on March 1 where he explained what happened. He was called to another meeting later that day where he was fired.
The termination letter alleged willful misconduct, time theft and fraud.
The union grieved.
Termination was warranted, the employer said. R.B. marked time for work he did not do on a vehicle that was not even there. He had committed fraud and time theft. And he did it knowingly. Honesty and integrity were crucial and necessary elements in the relationship between the employer and its service technicians, who worked largely independently. R.B. had broken the essential bond of trust, the employer said.
The union agreed R.B.’s actions amounted to time theft. He had seriously breached the employment relationship and discipline was warranted. However, R.B. had 17 years’ service and a clean disciplinary record. R.B. had engaged in wrong-doing, but it was not his idea. Termination was excessive in the circumstances, the union said.
The Arbitrator agreed.
The Arbitrator was not persuaded the employer had proven its more serious allegations against R.B. Apart from the one particular effort in question, which was made to cover up for a mistake, there was no evidence R.B. and the service agent had colluded or engaged in any conspiracy to punch in and out on work orders for work that was not done, the Arbitrator said.
“This was not the grievor’s own idea, he did not plan this. Instead, he was doing as he was asked by others. The grievor was motivated to help, not to deceive.”
Nevertheless, R.B. had committed a wrong and corrective discipline was warranted.
Deterrence does not justify discipline
The Arbitrator considered the employer’s assertion that a significant deterrent was required in the circumstances.
Deterrence was not the only method of securing compliance, the Arbitrator said.
“While I agree with the Employer that discipline often has a deterrent effect with respect to other employees, I do not accept that discipline can be justified on the basis of its use as a deterrent to other employees.” Other effective measures were available to demonstrate an employer’s commitment to ensure worker compliance with work rules and practices.
The Arbitrator also rejected the employer’s dim view of R.B.’s prospects for good behaviour in the future.
“The grievor had 17 years of discipline-free employment. He made one mistake. He accepts that it was wrong. Contrary to the Employer view, I think the grievor has an excellent chance of beginning another long period of discipline-free employment.”
The termination was changed to a one-day suspension. R.B. was ordered reinstated with back pay and no loss of seniority, exclusive of the one-day suspension.
