The grievor had been caught a second time leaving work early. His excuse was that he had forgotten to inform his supervisor. However, the promise he had signed after the first incident was not a “last-chance” agreement and the arbitrator found termination was too harsh a penalty.
A worker with 20 years’ seniority was fired following a second incident of time theft. The union grieved.
D.M. was employed as a millwright at a large manufacturing plant producing rolls of construction nylon wrap.
When he was fired in October 2010, there was one incident on his employment record. On April 7, D.M. left the plant for a couple of hours without notifying his supervisor or “scanning out” as required by plant policy.
Conditional reinstatement
D.M.’s absence was discovered and he was assessed a 10-shift suspension for time theft. Before returning to work, D.M. was required to sign a document agreeing to comply with conditions necessary for his continued employment at the plant.
The letter cautioned D.M. about socializing on company time and about his telephone use. It also reminded him he must comply with plant requirements with respect to signing out. The letter also said any recurrence of similarly disciplinable behaviour could result in termination.
Six months later, after a 12-hour, overnight shift — on October 17 — D.M. left the plant 20 minutes before the end of the shift. He did not scan out, nor did he notify his supervisor. D.M.’s next shift was Oct. 20.
The company became aware D.M. left early because he failed to provide the “hand off report” to the incoming shift as was normal. In an apparent effort to encourage D.M. to own up to his transgression, the company posted a notice to employees on Oct. 19 reminding them of the mandatory sign out procedures.
The supervisor reviewed the notice at the morning crew meeting when D.M. returned on Oct. 20. D.M. said nothing about his early departure from the previous shift.
D.M. and his union representative were called to a meeting the next day. When asked about his overnight shift, D.M. did not deny he left early without permission and without performing the required scan. D.M. said he simply forgot. He said he intended to tell his supervisor about his mistake after the fact but he forgot to do that too.
D.M. was fired.
The company was not wrong to label D.M.’s actions as time theft, the Arbitrator said. D.M. was aware of plant policy with respect to signing out. In fact, he was subject to specific conditions following his April suspension.
“In the absence of any satisfactory explanation from [D.M.] except his assertion that he had forgotten, I must conclude that he deliberately avoided the process in the hope that he might not be caught out for his absence. His act was deliberate and not an oversight. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the characterization as time theft was appropriate.”
Not a last chance agreement
But for the earlier April suspension, D.M. had a clear record. He was a good employee with 20 years’ service.
While his misconduct was serious, the letter of agreement he signed following his April suspension was not a “last chance” agreement. The union had not signed onto the agreement and had no part in negotiating it. It was not clear from the letter that the slightest misstep would end his career, the Arbitrator said.
“Although deliberate, his misconduct, in terms of being absent without leave for 20 minutes, was at the lower end of the offence spectrum. It was, nonetheless, time-theft, and, serious in view of the restrictions to which he had agreed.”
The Arbitrator said reinstatement was appropriate.
