Time is up for worker who snuck off the job early
A worker was fired for time theft after it was discovered he had arranged for a colleague to punch out his time card after he left work early.
Dave Heshka was employed as a millwright by Lafarge Canada in Richmond, B.C. He was a seven-year veteran of the mill when he was fired in August 2012.
The only discipline on his record prior to the events that led to his termination was a verbal warning for using a computer at work when he was not authorized to do so.
Just before he was fired, Heshka sustained a work-related injury to his hand in July 2012. There were differences of opinion between the employer and Heshka concerning the severity of the injury and what types of modified work were appropriate to accommodate an early return to work.
As a result, he was assigned to repaint crosswalks at the plant. However, Heshka was apparently unable to refrain from using his injured hand as set out in the terms of his modified duties of the job.
Twice warned to refrain from using his injured hand, Heshka was assessed a one-day suspension following a third occasion when a supervisor witnessed him using his injured hand. So Heshka was reassigned.
Scheduled appointment
Heshka had permission to leave work at 11:30 a.m. to attend a doctor’s appointment on Aug. 22. But sometime during that morning, a supervisor was alerted that Heshka might leave work even earlier.
While taking a smoke break outside, the supervisor saw Heshka drive off company property at 11:19 a.m. The supervisor then went to check to see if Heshka had punched out. He had not. At 11:30 a.m. another employee was seen to punch out — but with Heshka’s card.
Heshka and the employee who swiped his time card were confronted at meetings the next day.
The accomplice initially denied swiping the time card, but soon after gave a full confession. That worker was remorseful and contrite, his long service was taken into account and he was assessed a one-day suspension for his actions.
Confronted with the same facts, Heshka would make no direct admission or accept responsibility. He said only that he would not contradict the supervisor’s story. He did not apologize. Heshka was fired. His union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, grieved.
The arbitrator decided his termination was warranted.
There was no dispute between the parties that this was a case of time theft. The question was whether or not there were sufficient mitigating factors in the circumstances to reduce the discipline as requested by the union.
The arbitrator said there were insufficient mitigating factors to reduce the penalty in the face such a serious charge.
Heshka’s seniority did not really help. Noting the seven years to his credit, the arbitrator judged Heshka’s service to be "neither long nor short."
And the small amount of time involved — 11 minutes — didn’t serve to mitigate the penalty either.
Differential treatment
It would be one thing if Heshka had simply punched out 11 minutes earlier than his pre-arranged 11:30 quit time on that day. He did not. Instead he devised a premeditated plan, which put another employee at risk, to ensure he was paid until 11:30 a.m.
Making matters worse, Heshka had not taken responsibility for his conduct or expressed any remorse, said Gabriel Somjen, the sole arbitrator in the case. None of these factors pointed towards mitigating against the penalty of discharge for time theft, he added.
The arbitrator considered but rejected the union’s argument that the differential treatment meted out to the two scheming workers called the appropriateness of the termination into question.
"It is justifiable that the company would impose more serious discipline on (Heshka) than on (the other worker) in the circumstances. The difference between their disciplines is great. If there were other mitigating circumstances in favour of (Heshka), I may have concluded that, based on the great difference in discipline between the two participants in the Aug. 22 incident plus any other mitigating factors (such as showing remorse or unpremeditated conduct), that discharge was excessive in the circumstances," Somjen said in the ruling. "In particular, if there was a show of remorse, or acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct, I would have been inclined to substitute a lesser penalty."
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Lafarge Canada Inc. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local Lodge Number D385. Gabriel Somjen — Sole Arbitrator. May 23, 2013. 17pp.
