Library staffer throws out the book on job action

The show must go on — according to Belinda New, the film theatre supervisor at the Regina Public Library in Saskatchewan.

An arbitrator agreed, after New filed a grievance against the library for a three-day suspension relating to misconduct during a strike.

The Regina Public Library cited the reason for New’s suspension as "culpable misconduct, specifically dishonesty, fraud, insubordination and breach of trust."

New, alongside the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), countered that the discipline was "unjust."

The case came to a head in the spring of 2012, when CUPE served strike notice and, as part of job action, no longer accepted payment of fines or library fees from the public.

New was responsible for the delivery, planning, development and evaluation of film theatre programs, including regular contact and negotiations with film distributors. As such, she was not supportive of the proposed job action. Of particular concern was that there would be negative implications with the film distributors.

As part of her regular duties, New supplies box office reports to film distributors. The library is then invoiced by the distributor based on the audience numbers for the film. When the job action started, New informed her employees they were not to accept payment from moviegoers as admission was to be free.

By offering free screenings, New believed the library would be in breach of its contract with each distributor and, further, this might sour the relationship between the two parties.

But there were discrepancies in the audience numbers she provided for those free screenings. The numbers New provided were next to impossible, the distributors claimed, especially after security camera evidence showed less people than the number she provided.

As a result, the library slapped New with a three-day suspension, arguing her dishonesty in regard to the audience numbers was the tipping point.

"Honesty is a touchstone to a viable employment relationship," the library said.

The union argued there was a miscommunication and that New misunderstood what she was being asked to provide to the distributors — she had assumed she was to provide box office receipts as opposed to the actual attendance figures.

"There is nothing in Ms. New’s conduct which could support a finding of fraud... there is no evidence of any deceitful or dishonest intent or attempt to cover-up any conduct," the union argued.

This case is about a lack of — and poor — communication, said arbitrator Kenneth Stevenson. He accepted that when New reported to the distributors, she did so on the basis of her belief that due to the free screening, the Regina Public Library was in breach of an obligation to the distributor — which required her to report a full house.

Despite not being a contractual obligation, Stevenson believed this to be New’s genuine belief. Further, New’s performance went above and beyond what was expected of her, something Stevenson referred to as "exemplary."

She expressed her concern for the library and her staff, and on the night of the free screening went to the theatre for more than four hours, despite being unscheduled to work. She did not bill the employer for that time. She went out of concern for her staff so she could direct them how to perform the dos and don’ts for the free screening, Stevenson continued.

Her superiors at the library had reached the conclusion that New was dishonest and insubordinate, despite the fact that there was no order requiring her to report the attendance. As such, a three-day suspension was excessive for a minor breach of the trust obligations associated with her role.

A clause in the collective agreement states the employer agrees "there will be no discrimination directed at any employee by reason of membership or activity in the union."

As a result, Stevenson ordered a written reprimand in lieu of the suspension, and that the employer compensate New for any monetary loss she sustained as a result.