Saskatchewan custodial worker dismissed for stealing 10 cheap cleaning cloths

A Saskatchewan arbitrator has reinstated, with a suspension, a janitorial worker who was fired for stealing cleaning supplies.

Jerry Jumalon was hired by the University of Saskatchewan in 2011 as a caretaker in the university’s facilities management department. Originally from the Philippines, his first language wasn’t English.

The collective agreement provided for progressive discipline but the university reserved the right to use “any disciplinary action deemed appropriate.” Over the course of nearly eight years with the university, Jumalon had no disciplinary record.

The assistant manager supervised employees in multiple buildings, so Jumalon worked independently without close supervision cleaning a campus library.

On Dec. 3, 2018, someone called the university’s confidential phone line for reporting suspected fraud or unethical conduct and accused Jumalon of stealing cleaning products. The university put a hidden camera in the custodians’ cubby closet, where supplies were kept.

On Jan. 17, 2019, the camera recorded Jumalon bringing a lunch bag into the cubby, placing it on a shelf out of view, and appearing to place something into the bag. The camera was adjusted for a better view and, four days later, Jumalon was recorded taking five cleaning cloths from the shelf and putting them in his lunch bag.

A third recording from Feb. 6 showed Jumalon folding another five cleaning cloths and putting them into his lunch bag. The camera didn’t catch Jumalon bringing the lunch bag into the cubby on any other occasion over a one-month period.

Management held an investigation meeting, although Jumalon wasn’t told why. They told Jumalon that they had received a tip about misconduct at the library and Jumalon didn’t seem to know to what they were referring.

Management asked again and Jumalon still said there was nothing else. They told him about the phone call and asked if he had taken any cleaning supplies. Jumalon denied doing so or bringing any personal items such as his lunch bag into the cubby.

Management showed him photos taken from the surveillance footage and he initially said he didn’t remember the incidents. He then said he sometimes used the cloths to wipe his car’s windshield and mirrors in the winter. He apologized “from the bottom of my heart” and said he wouldn’t do it again.

Management determined that Jumalon hadn’t been honest and forthright in answering their questions and his apology after being shown the pictures was a confession. Jumalon sent a letter to management on March 1 apologizing for his “terrible mistake” and promising that he wouldn’t do it again, but the university terminated his employment three days later. The union grieved the termination as excessive and contrary to the progressive discipline set out in the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the university had proof of misconduct with the surveillance video. The fact that Jumalon brought his lunch bag into the cubby showed that the misconduct was pre-meditated and he knew it was wrong, said the arbitrator, adding that it was “a fundamental common-sense principle” that employee theft was wrong and could lead to termination, regardless of any workplace policies.

However, the arbitrator noted that the cloths were worth about $0.50 each, bringing the total value of the theft on the two recorded incidents to $5. Jumalon’s eight years of discipline-free service and his expressions of remorse were significant mitigating factors, the arbitrator said.

The arbitrator also found that management didn’t make direct allegations in the early part of the investigative interview, when they considered Jumalon to be dishonest and evasive. Jumalon had no idea what the meeting was about and there may have been a language barrier that affected his answers.

The arbitrator determined that Jumalon’s misconduct was serious but the employment relationship wasn’t irreparably damaged. The university was ordered to reinstate with a six-month suspension.