Despite a determination that dismissal was an excessive response to a security guard’s failure to follow procedure, an Arbitrator ruled that reinstatement was not appropriate in view of the guard’s post-termination e-mails to his employer and his history of performance errors.
Hired in March 2007, A.S. began working part-time as a security guard for an armoured car company. Completing the company’s “Basic Blue” training program, which included firearms training, A.S. achieved full-time status by the time he was fired in 2009. Depending on the shift, A.S. worked as either “guard/driver” or “messenger” on the company’s armoured trucks.
Performance issues surfaced in his first year on the job and were documented in his file. Complaints about A.S.’s driving led to a driving prohibition in June 2008. Four months later more complaints led to another driving prohibition, an assessment/investigation and, ultimately, a five-day suspension.
In February 2009, A.S. received two more warnings, one for an error in servicing an ATM and another for attendance issues and leaving paperwork at an ATM site.
Keys to the ATM
The alleged “culminating incident” that prompted his termination occurred on May 1, 2009 when A.S. and a colleague conspired to take a short cut and stash the “key kit” containing the keys to various ATMs in the armoured truck between runs. In this case, they opted for expedience rather than going through the elaborate check in and check out procedures and various protocols to establish joint, secure custody of the key kit as required.
Their attempt to finesse the procedures was discovered after they forgot to return the key kit to the vault at the end of the shift.
A.S. was fired.
The employer took the view that the key kit episode was a culminating incident in the short career of a poor-performing employee who, despite extra training and coaching, was unable to competently perform his duties and abide by company rules and procedures.
The union grieved. Discipline was warranted, it allowed, but termination was a wholly disproportionate response.
The Arbitrator agreed, in part. While the key kit incident reflected a willful breach of policy, it was understandable that they may prefer to leave the kit in the truck between runs. And, even though it was a breach of policy, the key kit was secure inasmuch as it was locked inside an armoured truck, which was parked in a secure location.
Not an ordinary case
Taking all the circumstances into account — including his record of discipline — the Arbitrator said that in the normal course of events the dismissal should be set aside. “However, this is not an ordinary case. Even though I am satisfied that dismissal was an excessive response to the culminating key kit incident, this is one of those extraordinary cases where reinstatement should not be ordered.”
In a high-stakes environment where the lives of armed employees are on the line, trust is a critical component of the employment relationship. A.S.’s errors in judgment and the attitudes he revealed in e-mails to his employer after his termination indicated that the employment relationship was no longer viable, the Arbitrator said: “This is an industry that is predicated on trust and responsibility and I am not persuaded that the Employer, or the grievor’s fellow employees, could repose that requisite trust in him if he were to be reinstated.”
A.S. admitted to making many mistakes in his tenure with company, the Arbitrator said, noting that mistakes in that industry can have “devastating consequences.”
A.S.’s hostile e-mails and pattern of taking stress leaves after being called to account for performance problems suggested to the Arbitrator that A.S. “does not respond well to corrective discipline and, indeed, I am of the view that his temperament renders him wholly unsuitable to work in this industry as an armed security guard.”
In lieu of reinstatement, the Arbitrator awarded A.S. five weeks’ wages.
