Termination warranted for security violations

An automotive worker for a defense contractor was fired for violating company security policy when he was caught at work using a personal laptop computer.

T.P. worked at military vehicle manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems. Hired in 1989, T.P. worked initially as a janitor and then as an assembler. In 2006, he became an internal auditor responsible for ensuring that completed vehicles conformed to specifications.

T.P. had been disciplined in February 2009 for excessive Internet use. However, because of a one-year sunset clause on discipline in the collective agreement, T.P.’s disciplinary record did not factor into his termination on April 26, 2010.

On March 30, 2010 a supervisor sought out T.P. to query him about an audit. He found T.P. in an office using a personal laptop computer. A USB (memory) stick was inserted into the computer.

Unauthorized laptop at work

The supervisor cautioned T.P. that personal laptops were forbidden at work. T.P. closed the laptop and pocketed the USB stick. Following a call from the supervisor, Security arrived. T.P.’s laptop was seized along with two discs. T.P. was questioned about the USB stick. He denied having one.

A forensic examination was conducted on T.P.’s laptop and on all the workplace computers to which he had access. The examination revealed that between 2006 and 2008 and at least on one occasion in 2009, T.P. had either run or installed unauthorized software on the employer’s computers. He had used the employer’s computers to view more than 100 movies, to store and view unauthorized documents and to play computer games.

T.P. was fired. The union grieved.

The employer said that T.P.’s misuse of company computers violated security policy. Also, the evidence that T.P. was watching movies and playing computer games while at work amounted to “time sheet fraud,” the employer said.

The union said that the employer’s disciplinary action amounted to “double jeopardy.” T.P. had been disciplined in 2009 for computer misuse. The employer could not now discipline him a second time for the same offence, the union said. Alternatively, the union said, it was too late in 2010 to discipline T.P. for computer misuse that occurred — for the most part — between 2006 and 2008.

The Arbitrator disagreed.

“In my view, the repeated accessing, running or installation of unauthorized software on GDLS assets is very serious misconduct on the part of the Grievor. It is in clear violation of GDLS security policies. There was no suggestion that those policies were not reasonable and given the nature of GDLS’ business I have no hesitation concluding that they are.”

Contradictory testimony

The Arbitrator did not accept T.P.’s story that he was simply an innocent computer hobbyist who took advantage of the workplace’s access to high speed Internet to download software. The story that he had corrected his behaviour after he was disciplined in 2009 did not exactly add up.

“[T]he Grievor’s evidence was sometimes contradictory, often defied credulity, only acknowledged what he could not deny and generally demonstrated a complete refusal to accept responsibility for his actions. I am driven to the conclusion that if reinstated the Grievor could not be trusted,” the Arbitrator said.

There was little in the way of mitigating factors to count in T.P.’s favour, the Arbitrator said.

The operation of the sunset clause meant that all that could be said of T.P.’s record was that it was clear for the one-year period leading up to his termination. His misconduct was neither an isolated occurrence nor a spur-of-the-moment event. Provocation was not a factor and there was no evidence presented to suggest that the employer failed to uniformly enforce its rules.

“This leaves the long service of the Grievor (21 years) and the economic hardship which loss of his high paying job represents. In light of my determination with respect to the other factors, these factors are not persuasive.”

The grievance was dismissed.