The grievor was terminated for putting through two safety-boot reimbursements. As unlikely as the whole scenario appeared to the arbitrator, he still found the evidence convincing and upheld the discipline.
A municipal worker was fired after her employer said she photocopied and then resubmitted an order form so she could double up on her annual boot entitlement. The union grieved, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the employer’s charge.
On June 6, 2011, municipal worker K.R. took a Uniform Order Form detailing items on her annual clothing allowance to the municipality’s authorized clothing distributor. The order could not be filled on the spot. K.R. was notified that the order was ready on June 14. K.R. acquired another Order Form from her employer authorizing a boot purchase. She went to the store at about 12:30 p.m. on June 21, 2011.
On July 14, a worker in the municipal accounting department approved an invoice for a boot purchase by K.R. on June 21. Later in the day, another invoice surfaced for another pair of the same boots apparently also sold to K.R. The invoices were numbered differently but both were signed by K.R.
The clothing distributor confirmed that the invoices were generated for two separate transactions that occurred about 22 minutes apart on June 21 and that K.R. had been given two pairs of boots.
Signed invoices
K.R. was interviewed on July 22. She acknowledged her signature on both invoices but said she had only received one pair of boots.
K.R. was fired.
The employer said the signed invoices and the testimony of the two clerks from the store supported its theory that K.R. had reused the boot order form to get another pair of boots.
The employer alleged K.R. had made a photocopy of the boot order form. She picked up her clothing order and then submitted the boot order with a male clerk at about 12:35 p.m. and left shortly afterwards. The first boot invoice was generated at 12:41 p.m.
The employer contended that K.R. then returned shortly afterwards on the pretext of purchasing a notebook cover for a colleague. K.R. was served the second time by a female clerk. The employer said that K.R. then submitted the photocopied order form, received another pair of boots and left. The second boot invoice was generated at 1:09 p.m.
The union said that the employer’s story did not add up. K.R. denied being served at all by the male clerk. The union also said that employer’s timeline didn’t make sense. K.R. could not have tried on all the items of clothing — as required by company policy — between the time she arrived at the store and the time at which the first invoice was generated, the union said. It also strained credulity to imagine K.R. would jeopardize her job for a pair of boots.
The Arbitrator was also incredulous K.R. might risk so much for so little. The Arbitrator expressed concern too about the possibility that events somehow unfolded so that K.R. was made to sign two sets of invoices while only receiving one pair of boots.
Balance of probabilities
However, the test in this case was measured against a balance of probabilities, the Arbitrator said.
“My duty… is to weigh the documentary evidence and testimony actually before me, not to reinvent it. The employer is not obliged to negate any possibility that the grievor only obtained one pair of boots, but only to demonstrate that it is more probable than not that she obtained two.”
The evidence and testimony supported the employer’s case, the Arbitrator said. The clerks who testified were unequivocal and their testimony was unshaken.
“Their accounts leave no room for the possibility that the grievor only received one pair of boots. They were not shaken on cross-examination.”
The union’s explanation relied on its assertion another clerk participated in the transaction, however, that clerk was not called to testify.
There was also no explanation to account for how the information entered on the first invoice could have been anticipated when K.R. denied that the exchange had taken place.
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: The Corporation of the City of Brampton and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 831. Owen V. Gray — Sole Arbitrator. Heather Grassick for the Union. Michael Hines for the Employer. March 8, 2012. 18 pp.
