Receptionist took chocolates from package with wrong name and then tried to cover it up
This instalment of You Make the Call looks at an employee who claimed a permanent job reassignment was excessive discipline for stealing from a package delivered to the office and then lying about it.
Carol McClintick, 59, worked at the front counter for the Times Colonist newspaper in Victoria for 10 out of the 22 years she was at the paper. On July 10, 2007, she accepted a courier package addressed to a name she couldn’t find on the employee list. She decided to open the package to see if there was any information on the intended recipient. She didn’t find anything except for a tin of chocolates.
McClintick kept the chocolates at her desk but didn’t check with her supervisor or call the courier. At the end of the day, she took the chocolates home to give to a friend, despite the fact she knew it was a serious act of misconduct and could get her fired. The next day an employee inquired about the package, saying she was expecting the chocolates from her boyfriend, whose name had been accidentally put on the address label instead of hers. McClintick acknowledged seeing the package come in but denied knowing where it was and said she had left it on the desk. Later, she bought a replacement box and tried to give it to the employee, but management said it was still investigating. McClintick was asked if she was being honest about the chocolates and she said she had her own chocolates in her purse.
McClintick told a friend and co-worker about taking the chocolates and the two further tried to cover up the theft by buying another box of chocolates to serve as the ones she said she had in her purse.
At an investigative meeting on July 13, McClintick admitted to stealing the chocolates and buying a replacement box. She was given a discipline letter the next workday saying she would be suspended without pay for four weeks because of “two very serious forms of misconduct” — the theft and dishonesty. She was also told she would be reassigned to another position since the Times Colonist felt it couldn’t have her in a position of trust any longer. There was no reduction of pay or seniority or a reclassification of her position but she was moved to a job she didn’t enjoy as much as the front counter work. She also felt her absence from the counter was a “very visible and daily reminder of her being disciplined.”
You Make the Call
Was the suspension and reassignment sufficient discipline?
OR
Was the reassignment too much after the suspension?
If you said the suspension and reassignment together were appropriate, you’re right. The arbitrator found while the relocation might be considered a transfer, it didn’t affect McClintick’s financial situation, future earning potential or job classification. She also didn’t lose any job security or seniority.
“In my opinion the change in work location is not demotional in nature or effect even if (McClintick) finds the location less desirable,” the arbitrator said.
The arbitrator also found it was reasonable to remove McClintick from the front counter as it was a position of trust that was mostly unsupervised. Her “deliberate pattern of deceit that continued for three days,” particularly since she knew property theft was a serious employment offence, was a significant breach of trust for a long-term employee. She committed the theft because she thought she could get away with it, according to the arbitrator.
“Despite the very serious nature of the theft and deceit in this case, (the Times Colonist) did not impose the ultimate penalty of discharge but took into account (McClintick’s long service),” the arbitrator said. “The employer’s -response to (McClintick’s) behaviour has been measured, just and extremely reasonable given all of the circumstances surrounding the incident.”
For more information see:
•Victoria Times Colonist v. Victoria-Vancouver Island Newspaper Guilde, Local 223, 2007 CarswellBC 3255 (B.C. C.A.A.).
Carol McClintick, 59, worked at the front counter for the Times Colonist newspaper in Victoria for 10 out of the 22 years she was at the paper. On July 10, 2007, she accepted a courier package addressed to a name she couldn’t find on the employee list. She decided to open the package to see if there was any information on the intended recipient. She didn’t find anything except for a tin of chocolates.
McClintick kept the chocolates at her desk but didn’t check with her supervisor or call the courier. At the end of the day, she took the chocolates home to give to a friend, despite the fact she knew it was a serious act of misconduct and could get her fired. The next day an employee inquired about the package, saying she was expecting the chocolates from her boyfriend, whose name had been accidentally put on the address label instead of hers. McClintick acknowledged seeing the package come in but denied knowing where it was and said she had left it on the desk. Later, she bought a replacement box and tried to give it to the employee, but management said it was still investigating. McClintick was asked if she was being honest about the chocolates and she said she had her own chocolates in her purse.
McClintick told a friend and co-worker about taking the chocolates and the two further tried to cover up the theft by buying another box of chocolates to serve as the ones she said she had in her purse.
At an investigative meeting on July 13, McClintick admitted to stealing the chocolates and buying a replacement box. She was given a discipline letter the next workday saying she would be suspended without pay for four weeks because of “two very serious forms of misconduct” — the theft and dishonesty. She was also told she would be reassigned to another position since the Times Colonist felt it couldn’t have her in a position of trust any longer. There was no reduction of pay or seniority or a reclassification of her position but she was moved to a job she didn’t enjoy as much as the front counter work. She also felt her absence from the counter was a “very visible and daily reminder of her being disciplined.”
You Make the Call
Was the suspension and reassignment sufficient discipline?
OR
Was the reassignment too much after the suspension?
If you said the suspension and reassignment together were appropriate, you’re right. The arbitrator found while the relocation might be considered a transfer, it didn’t affect McClintick’s financial situation, future earning potential or job classification. She also didn’t lose any job security or seniority.
“In my opinion the change in work location is not demotional in nature or effect even if (McClintick) finds the location less desirable,” the arbitrator said.
The arbitrator also found it was reasonable to remove McClintick from the front counter as it was a position of trust that was mostly unsupervised. Her “deliberate pattern of deceit that continued for three days,” particularly since she knew property theft was a serious employment offence, was a significant breach of trust for a long-term employee. She committed the theft because she thought she could get away with it, according to the arbitrator.
“Despite the very serious nature of the theft and deceit in this case, (the Times Colonist) did not impose the ultimate penalty of discharge but took into account (McClintick’s long service),” the arbitrator said. “The employer’s -response to (McClintick’s) behaviour has been measured, just and extremely reasonable given all of the circumstances surrounding the incident.”
For more information see:
•Victoria Times Colonist v. Victoria-Vancouver Island Newspaper Guilde, Local 223, 2007 CarswellBC 3255 (B.C. C.A.A.).
