Attempting to cover his tracks by throwing out mis-mixed product, a bulk seasonings mixer at a food services company was fired after the company discovered discarded bags of Polish sausage-flavoured cranberry stuffing mix by the trash compactor.
Hired in 1999, R.T. worked as a Blending Packaging Operator for a food services company. Engaged chiefly in blending dry ingredients, spices and oils in industrial blenders, the job is detail oriented and requires consistent and meticulous documentation at every stage in order to ensure quality and consistency. Before blending, the various component ingredients are recorded by weight and tracked by lot number and indicated on the final product.
In the event of mistakes, Quality Control determines whether or not the product can be salvaged by reworking it into another formulation. When product must be discarded as a last resort, the “batching error” is documented and inventory adjusted accordingly. Plant rules outline basic production procedures and forbid the falsification of records or reports.
R.T. was slated to mix up 27 kilos of Polish sausage stuffing followed by 27 kilos of cranberry stuffing.
After assembling the ingredients for the two mixes by his blender, R.T. was called away by his supervisor to assist with another batch being processed.
R.T. returned and began his mix. Discovering a short time later that the dry ingredients for the sausage were still by the machine, R.T. realized that he had inadvertently mixed the cranberry with the Polish sausage oils.
Batching error
While R.T. recorded on a label the ingredients that went into the batching error, he did not contact quality control. Instead, R.T. pulled new dry ingredients in order to re-do the batch. He did not record the fact that he took ingredients a second time.
At the end of the day, R.T. put the mis-batch in the trash. However, he later became concerned that the bags would be discovered in the plant so he found the maintenance person and asked him to remove the bags and put them outside by the trash compactor.
The bags were discovered and traced back to R.T. He was called in to his supervisor’s office when he arrived at work the following Monday.
R.T. was suspended and then fired. The employer alleged that R.T. was attempting to steal product and that he had falsified documents contrary to company policy.
The union grieved.
Before the Arbitrator, the union argued that there was no case for the theft as alleged by the employer. The facts did not add up, the union said, and it was improper for the employer to terminate R.T. for theft and then change the basis for the firing to policy violations after the fact.
If there were violations of policy, termination was an excessive response, the union said.
No theft
The Arbitrator agreed. The evidence did not support the allegation of theft and the employer had failed to meet the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that R.T. was trying to steal product.
However, the company could cite violations of policy and procedures as cause for discipline and even termination, the Arbitrator said. R.T.’s violations were serious, the Arbitrator said. “[R.T.’s] failure to record the product he destroyed or what he did with the extra ingredients was a very serious violation of the company’s procedures with respect to documentation. The company needs to be able to track all product and the ingredients used to make it by lot number in case there is ever a problem or a recall.”
R.T. was well aware of the established procedures and understood the significance of the rules he was breaking. The company deserved better from R.T., the Arbitrator said. It understands the nature of the “human factor” in production and accepts that errors will happen. “That tolerance should not have been rewarded by [R.T.’s] actions.”
Nevertheless, R.T. was a 10-year employee with a clean record. He confessed to his mistake and, in the Arbitrator’s estimation, the employment relationship was not beyond repair.
The grievance was allowed, in part. R.T. was reinstated without compensation.
