With no mitigating factors in play, the 12-year career of a casino security guard came to an abrupt end after he waved an 11-year-old boy through his checkpoint and onto the gaming floor.
Hired by the casino as a security officer in 1996, M.K. was on duty on the busy 2008 Victoria Day holiday Monday at the casino’s noisy escalator entrance.
Video surveillance revealed that at about 2:15 p.m., M.K. — slouching, with his hands in his pockets and leaning against some equipment — waved through his checkpoint a group of three people that included an 11-year-old boy wearing a bulky coat and a fishing hat. About five minutes later the boy was challenged by casino staff and detained.
Total disregard of security protocols
By 3 p.m., M.K. was in the shift manager’s office preparing a report about the incident. M.K. was then suspended. Directed to return three days later, M.K. reported to the video surveillance room where he reviewed the video of the incident in the presence of his union steward and the Security Manager. Shortly afterwards, M.K. was given a termination letter alleging that he was being fired for cause, in particular for his “total disregard for established security protocols” and for a material breach of the regulations established by Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO).
The union grieved the termination. The union acknowledged that the boy should not have been able to gain access to the casino; however it argued that, in the absence of any gambling or consumption of alcohol by the boy, there wasn’t sufficient cause to terminate M.K. In the 30 previous cases involving minors gaining access to the casino, the usual penalty was a three or five-day suspension, the union said. Terminations were the result in only six documented cases.
Citing provisions in the collective agreement, the employer said it was entitled to terminate employees for certain deemed offences, including a “material breach of the AGCO regulations.” Moreover, the employer said, once such a breach had been established, dismissal was to be deemed for just cause and it was agreed that the arbitration board was to have no power to substitute or alter the penalty.
The prohibition against minors in casinos is a critical aspect of the Gaming Control Act, breaches of which can lead to substantial fines and/or the loss of a gaming or liquor license.
Substantial fines
The casino vice-president responsible for compliance confirmed the union’s tally of suspensions and terminations and noted too that the casino had been previously fined for three such incidents — twice for amounts in excess of $100,000.
Termination was not automatic in such cases, the casino security director said. Each case was examined on its own merits and suspensions were often substituted in place of terminations where there were mitigating factors. That wasn’t the case here. By his demeanor, and by failing to establish eye contact and ask for identification, M.K. had demonstrated a “total disregard of his duties,” the director said. In addition, M.K. had five prior incidents of discipline on his record, including suspensions for irate and aggressive behaviour towards a supervisor and a fellow security officer.
The arbitrator upheld the termination. “[I] am satisfied … that the grievor seriously misconducted himself by failing to ask for identification of proof of age, thereby allowing an 11-year-old minor to gain access to the gambling floor of the casino. It is readily apparent that few issues are of greater importance to the employer than prohibition of minors gaining access to the casino.”
The arbitrator affirmed the casino security director’s assertion that M.K.’s performance constituted a “complete failure to exercise the function of a security officer.” Absent any mitigating factors, the arbitrator said, “there can be no justification for the employer to reduce the penalty from a termination to a period of suspension. This is a clear case of non-performance of the duties of a position which, in my view, justifies summary dismissal.”
