Stealing from warehouse proved just cause for termination
An Ontario rug company had just cause to fire a worker who took two rugs without permission or payment, an arbitrator has ruled.
Multy Home is a company in Concord, Ont., that manufactures and sells rugs. The worker was a forklift operator at the warehouse where rugs were stored for shipping, hired in 2006.
On Sept. 12, 2020, security cameras recorded the worker and a coworker removing four rugs from the shipping area and placing them in the coworker’s car. The worker drove the car to the other end of the parking lot, where he put two of the rugs into his own car.
When management viewed the surveillance footage, it launched an investigation that included interviews of both the worker and his coworker.
The coworker explained that he had paid for four rugs, which he could verify with a purchase slip. He said he had only taken home two rugs before because he was waiting for a different colour and type to become available. On Sept. 12, he intended to take two more rugs home. According to the coworker, the worker said that he had purchased two rugs himself and offered to help the coworker load his into his car.
In his own interview, the worker said that he had seen the coworker’s purchase slip for four rugs and helped him load four rugs into his car. He didn’t mention that he had transferred two of the rugs into his own car and provided no explanation as to why.
The supervisor on duty on Sept. 12 said that he was aware that the coworker had purchased four rugs and he intended to take the remaining two that day. He wasn’t aware of any purchase made by the worker or that the worker intended to take two rugs for himself.
After the interviews, the investigators determined that the worker had removed the rugs without authorization or explanation. Multy Home terminated his employment for theft.
The union filed a grievance claiming that Multy didn’t have just cause for dismissal. The worker then claimed that he had thought all four rugs were part of his coworker’s purchase and the coworker offered him two of the rugs in exchange for his catering business supplying the coworker’s family with a catered lunch. He claimed that he hadn’t provided this explanation in the investigative interview because he had been accused of theft and “all he could do was reiterate that he did not steal any rugs.”
The coworker denied making any arrangement with the worker for catering and said that he didn’t even know the worker had a catering business. The worker didn’t deliver any catered food to the coworker after the interviews, but he gave the rugs to a friend visiting from Jamaica. The union claimed that the worker didn’t return the rugs because he hadn’t been asked to and he had been told not to come back to Multy Home’s premises.
The arbitrator acknowledged some problems and inconsistencies with the coworker’s account of the matter — such as why he didn’t ask to see the worker’s purchase order before loading the two additional rugs into his car — but found that this didn’t change the fact that the worker took two rugs for himself from the warehouse without authorizing or paying for them. The explanation that he took them from the coworker in exchange for catering services wasn’t credible, particularly since he would have been aware following his interview that the coworker didn’t have the authority to offer the rugs to him. However, he didn’t offer to return them or pay for them.
“The only conclusion to be drawn is that the [worker] committed theft of the two rugs and refused to acknowledge his wrongdoing,” the arbitrator said in dismissing the grievance.
Reference: LIUNA, Local 183 and Multy Home. Norm Jesin — arbitrator. Michael Horvat for employer. Andrew Black for employee. Aug. 25, 2021. 2021 CarswellOnt 11968
