The grievor was apprehended stealing beer from his employer. His claims of mental stess drug and alcohol dependency could not be verified. The arbitrator found the bond of trust had been breached.
A brewery worker was terminated after he was caught stealing product. The union grieved, arguing that mitigating circumstances called for a lesser penalty.
Brewery worker R.C. had about seven years’ service when he was fired for theft on April 21, 2011.
An anonymous tip alerted a company manager that two night-shift workers from the keg room were stealing product.
A preliminary check of punch cards showed that two workers were regularly punching out during their shifts. One of those workers was R.C.
A punch clock was located a short distance from the keg room exit. Beyond the punch clock was a guard station and then a walkway to the company parking lot.
The guard station was occupied during the night shift except for about a one-hour period when the guard was doing the rounds.
On April 1, 2011, the manager staked out the keg room exit during the overnight shift. He saw R.C. and another worker leave the keg room with duffel bags and a knapsack. They were seen exiting the building and moving towards some parked cars before the manager lost sight of them.
The manager reported his findings and another stakeout was conducted five days later. Another manager was also in attendance.
Again, R.C. and another worker were seen walking out of the plant with bags. This time they were seen placing the bags into a car.
68 cans of beer
On April 8, several members from management and security were present for the stakeout. R.C. was confronted. He had 68 cans of beer, worth about $140, in the bags he was carrying.
R.C. read a prepared statement at an investigatory meeting held on April 11. R.C. said he was under stress at the time. He presented a list of personal misfortunes ranging from deaths in his wife’s family to financial and marital problems to the loss of the family pet.
R.C.’s mental state at the time was also affected by various prescription medications, including antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs, Percocet and Tylenol 3. In January 2011, R.C. said, he began to drink heavily while taking his prescription medications. R.C. denied he was an alcoholic. However, he claimed he was using drugs and alcohol to self-medicate for depression and a mood disorder. According to R.C., he began drinking about 24 cans of beer per day beginning in December 2010. R.C. denied selling any of the stolen product.
R.C. was fired.
The union said R.C. had made changes since his termination. He had all but given up drinking and he had sought assistance from an Employee Assistance Program. R.C. had also begun sessions with Catholic Family Services. He had increased his prescribed intake of antidepressants and had begun pre-entry sessions with a view to entry into a day treatment program for mental health and addiction problems. The union argued for a six-month suspension instead of termination.
The union had not made a compelling case for reinstatement, the Arbitrator said.
The Arbitrator acknowledged that R.C. was remorseful and that he had admitted his wrongdoing. It was noted that R.C. had seven years’ seniority and that he had been a good employee. R.C. claimed that he had been self-medicating in response to stress and the burdens of depression and a mood disorder.
No alcohol disability
R.C.’s actions obviously constituted a serious breach of the employment relationship. The ultimate question in the circumstances was whether or not the relationship could be rehabilitated and trust restored.
This was not a likely prospect, the Arbitrator said.
R.C. made no claim he was disabled by alcoholism.
To reduce the culpability for his behaviour to a point where a restoration of the employment relationship could be contemplated, the union would have to establish that R.C.’s anxiety, depression and mood disorder could be linked to the thefts. There was no direct medical evidence to support that conclusion, the Arbitrator said — only R.C.’s self-diagnosis. That was not good enough.
Moreover, however remorseful R.C. was, the Arbitrator was not persuaded that he was entirely candid. Elements of R.C.’s story did not ring true.
R.C. insisted he was only taking cans of beer that had been stashed in the keg room by others or, in other words, stealing from the stashes of other thieves. It seemed unlikely that such circumstances would present themselves so regularly and predictably over an eight-month period, the Arbitrator said.
R.C.’s claim that he was he was drinking 24 cans of beer per day also strained credulity. R.C. was a high-performing employee. There were no workplace incidents on record as would be expected from someone drinking at that level. Nor did he offer any explanation as to how he got to and from work in an impaired state.
“[I] recognize that the grievor is very remorseful and that he made an early admission of his wrongdoing, I must also recognize that he was caught in the act of removing a large quantity of product and clearly could have no other innocent explanation… I have some sympathy for the grievor because of all of the personal trials he had been living through since 2005 but I cannot conclude that those misfortunes caused his behaviour or reduced his degree of culpability,” the Arbitrator said.
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Molson Breweries and Canadian Union of Brewery and General Workers Component. W.B. Rayner — Sole Arbitrator. Graham Williamson for the Union. Hugh Dyer for the Employer. Sept. 9, 2011. 10 pp.
