The grievor had lost the employer a considerable amount of money by crediting rather than debiting customers’ bank accounts for purchases. She was suspended and required to make up the shortfall. The suspension held at arbitration, but the company had failed to make enough efforts to recoup the money owed, so the reimbursement was overturned.
A ticket collector for a transit authority was conditionally reinstated on a without prejudice basis after she reimbursed the employer for a cash shortfall she incurred by inadvertently crediting — instead of debiting — the accounts of a number of customers for the cost of their monthly transit passes.
However, the union grieved the four-day suspension. The union also said it was inappropriate for the worker to be compelled to repay the shortfall.
H.B. began as a collector for the transit authority on Dec. 23, 2007. There were no indications she had any difficulty processing debit and credit card transactions until Oct. 27, 2008. Over the course of that day, and the following day, she incorrectly processed nine debit card transactions.
H.B. gave the customers the monthly transit passes they requested and, instead of debiting the accounts, she credited them for the amount of the passes.
The loss — accounting both for the passes that were given out without charge and the total sum credited to the various bank accounts — amounted to about $1,900.
Inadequate training alleged
The union argued that H.B. was not to blame because her training was inadequate. The union also said the employer had failed to ensure that there was a manual in H.B.’s booth at the station.
The Arbitrator rejected both arguments. H.B. had successfully processed nearly $30,000 worth of similar transactions before October 2008. That indicated she had been sufficiently trained, the Arbitrator said. As well, H.B. had a manual in her car, which was parked at the station and available to her.
H.B. was negligent in her work, the Arbitrator said.
“The grievor was negligent to the point of recklessness and in my view, the penalty should reflect the duty of care required, as well as the negligent performance. Moreover, the grievor has attempted to shift responsibility to both her training and also to the absence of a manual and has not assumed full responsibility for her conduct.”
A four-day suspension was appropriate, the Arbitrator said.
However, H.B. should not be compelled to make up for the cash shortfall, the Arbitrator said.
In this case, the employer was obligated to take reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. It did not.
Three of the parties to the transaction — the employer, the banks and the payment card processing company — failed to take sufficient action to recover the funds, the Arbitrator said.
The standard practice to correct such errors requires the card processing company to send a good faith collection letter to the card-holder’s bank to ask for assistance in contacting the card-holder to get permission to debit his or her account to complete or correct the transaction.
No follow-up
Such letters were sent out to the banks in question. For the most part, there were no replies.
Neither did the card processing company initiate any follow-up.
The employer made only minimal and insufficient efforts to pursue the matter with the card processing company. The card processing company made only “tepid” efforts to correct the errors. The evidence showed that the banks only responded in two cases.
“The trail to the customers has simply run out, with no explanation whatsoever as to what was finally done to redress the loss suffered by the [employer] for which the grievor is held responsible. The [employer] cannot deflect its responsibility to mitigate to [the card processing company], nor can [the card processing company] deflect its responsibility to assist … the banks.”
“In short,” the Arbitrator said, “there has been a systematic failure by all three entities of the shared responsibility to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach by the grievor of her duty of care.”
The employer could not hold H.B. responsible for the loss.
The employer was ordered to return the repayment that H.B. had made.
Reference: Local 113, Amalgamated Transit Union and Toronto Transit Commission. Owen B. Shime — Sole Arbitrator. Steve Lavender for the Employer. Ian Fellows for the Union. August 26, 2011. 14 pp.
