But union successfully grieves dismissal, citing leniency with other workers
A Purolator worker was an unfair sacrificial lamb when he was fired after a video of him and co-workers mishandling packages aired on a news program, an arbitrator ruled.
The 50-year-old worker was a depot sorter for Purolator in Prince George, B.C. His job involved securing the aircraft that flew into the facility every morning and unloading the freight into vans, usually using a hydraulic belt-loader.
Purolator’s approved unloading process required using the belt-loader, and other methods weren’t encouraged. If the belt-loader had mechanical issues, a substitute belt-loader was available for rental from an airline that used the facility. If the substitute belt-loader wasn’t available, the freight was to be returned to the aircraft — though there was no evidence this had ever happened.
In November 2014, the unit manager reminded employees they worked in a “fishbowl” and their actions could be seen by anyone nearby with a cellphone. He also told them they must never unload freight without using a belt-loader. In addition, the employee handbook stated “customer shipments must not be thrown or mishandled in any way.”
The worker received a one-day suspension in December 2014 for failing to put away the belt-loader when it wasn’t in use.
Misconduct caught on video
On March 15, 2015, a news program aired a video from the Prince George facility recorded on a cellphone. The video depicted a Purolator employee tossing packages to a worker who then tossed them into a van. The hydraulic belt-loader could be seen off to one side and two other employees were present.
The manager of Purolator’s air division in Ontario saw the broadcast and called the worker’s manager regarding the violation of company protocol.
Three of the four employees in the video were interviewed separately via conference call with management.
In his interview, the worker acknowledged he shouldn’t have been unloading without a belt-loader and admitted he would be “PO’d” if someone handled his goods that way.
On March 18, all three employees were dismissed, including the worker. The worker’s letter of termination stated he was identified in a video from a television broadcast mishandling freight and he was unable to provide an explanation for his actions.
His “blatant disregard for the safekeeping of customer freight” caught on video diminished Purolator’s brand and reputation and warranted immediate dismissal, the letter concluded.
A few weeks later, two of the employees were reinstated after reaching settlement agreements.
So the union, Teamsters, Local 31, filed a grievance on behalf of the worker, pointing to a March 2014 incident where an employee who had intentionally thrown packages from a table towards mail slots and into a cage on the floor was only suspended for five days rather than fired. It also argued that Purolator was lenient with regards to the use of a belt-loader in certain circumstances when it had mechanical problems, so it wasn’t treated as a “blanket rule.”
Arbitrator Joan McEwan found that the way Purolator treated past instances of employees throwing freight, as well as the company’s actions in this case, demonstrated that it viewed such misconduct as “relatively minor.”
McEwan noted that the company’s investigation into the matter consisted of a single interview of each employee identified and it was via conference call, not even in-person.
In addition, it was the manager of the air division in Ontario who initiated the process after viewing the video on the news program, not the unit managers in Prince George.
There was nothing indicating the unit managers who worked directly with the worker had any meaningful input into the decision to terminate, said McEwan.
Purolator’s history addressing similar instances of misconduct was also telling. There were other examples of employees failing to use the belt-loader, but this resulted in suspension, not dismissal.
The worker himself had a one-day suspension on his record, but jumping to his dismissal after that would require serious misconduct, especially since the previous discipline wasn’t related to throwing packages, said McEwan .
McEwan found the three employees in this instance were singled out because they were recorded on a video that was broadcast. Even then, the other two were reinstated with a settlement negotiated between Purolator and Teamsters.
In addition, the worker acknowledged his misconduct, even if it wasn’t a full-blown apology.
Given the relatively minor nature of the misconduct and the lack of any similar misconduct on the worker’s record, the employment relationship wasn’t irreparably damaged, said McEwan.
Purolator was ordered to reinstate the worker with a three-day suspension on his record — “consistent with the principles of progressive discipline” — and compensation for lost wages and benefits.
McEwan denied a claim by Teamsters for additional damages for the manner of dismissal, finding no bad faith on Purolator’s part as it was acting out of concern for its reputation with the public.
For more information see:
• Purolator Inc. and TC, Local 31 (Smith), Re, 2015 CarswellNat 5537 (Can. Arb.).
