Safeway cashier was afraid of ex-daughter-in-law with stolen card numbers but disregard of company policy warranted discipline
A tale of bullying and fraud
Can being bullied be an excuse for employee misconduct? Not in the case of one Alberta grocery store cashier, who violated her store’s policy on serving family members by looking after her troubled son’s ex-wife. She then violated another policy by allowing the woman to pay with credit card numbers without an actual card. After being warned about it, she served her ex-daughter-in-law again less than a week later.
When the numbers turned out to be stolen, the cashier admitted her misconduct but said she was afraid of her former in-law, who along with her son was a drug addict and abusive towards her. However, the store felt the incidents showed dishonesty on her part and fired her.
The arbitration board found the cashier’s fear didn’t excuse the fact she knew what she was doing and should have been more responsible. However, it didn’t think she was being dishonest and, considering that was the main reason for the firing, ordered reinstatement with alternate discipline.
When employees are aware of what they’re doing, they are responsible for their misconduct regardless of their state of mind, but employers firing someone must be sure the employment relationship is irreversibly damaged. Otherwise, an arbitrator might find alternative discipline would suffice.
An Alberta woman has been suspended from work for letting her abusive ex-daughter-in-law bully her into processing fraudulent credit card transactions at her grocery store. However, she might consider herself fortunate since she was actually fired for the transgression until the Alberta Arbitration Board had its say.
G.H., 59, worked at Safeway in Edmonton as a cashier for 12 years. She was married to an abusive husband until he died in 1996. Her son became a drug addict and he and his wife often stayed with her, asking her for money for drugs and subjecting her to physical and verbal abuse. As a result, G.H. became fearful of both her son and his wife, who he divorced but reconciled with in 2006, with her moving back into G.H.’s home.
G.H.’s problems led to bouts of depression. In 2003, she went on short-term disability after her doctor felt it was bad enough that she couldn’t work. Her problems with her son and his ex-wife were known to Safeway staff, as both often came into the store to ask her for money, sometimes creating a scene. The store manager and assistant manager both recommended she use Safeway’s employee assistance plan for help, but she didn’t follow up.
Troubled son’s ex-wife had credit card numbers on piece of paper
On Sept. 6, 2006, her son’s ex-wife came to her till to pay for some groceries. Her former daughter-in-law said she wanted to pay by credit card but didn’t have the card with her. Instead, she had some numbers written down on a piece of paper. G.H. accepted the numbers, which were validated to complete the transaction, worth $187.25.
The assistant manager saw the transaction and recognized G.H.’s daughter-in-law. He told G.H. Safeway policy stipulated cashiers were not supposed to serve family members and she could be fired for violating the policy. G.H. knew of the policy and acknowledged her breach, later apologizing to the assistant manager. At the time, the assistant manager didn’t know G.H. had performed the transaction without an actual credit card, which was also against policy.
Six days later, on Sept. 12, G.H.’s ex-daughter-in-law returned and put her groceries on G.H.’s counter while G.H. was serving another customer. When she got to the register, a lineup had formed behind her, so G.H. served her, despite the fact she knew she shouldn’t. Once again, her ex-daughter-in-law provided a piece of paper with numbers instead of a credit card. G.H. processed the transaction, worth $230.25, and once again it was approved electronically.
A supervisor noticed the transaction and reported it to the store manager, who was aware of the warning G.H. had received the previous week. He asked Safeway security to investigate the two transactions and it was discovered the numbers had been stolen from the card holder and both transactions were fraudulent.
Investigation uncovers fraud
Further investigation revealed G.H.’s son and his ex-wife had made four other fraudulent purchases at Safeway with the stolen numbers with other employees totalling more than $600. None of the other employees were disciplined for following through on the transactions without the actual card because the numbers hadn’t been reported as stolen and were approved electronically.
However, G.H.’s transactions involved a family member, which was a violation of company policy. The company also felt it was more serious because she knew it was unlikely either her son or his ex-wife would have a credit card because of their financial situation. The company knew employees often face pressure from family members to do dishonest things at the till but they are expected to resist.
On Sept. 22, 2006, G.H. was interviewed by Safeway’s security investigator. She acknowledged she knew the company’s rules and agreed she acted improperly. She said she didn’t do it intentionally, but “it just happened” and she apologized. G.H. said she went through with both transactions because she was afraid her ex-daughter-in-law would “make a scene.” She also said if she knew she would be fired for serving her ex-daughter-in-law, she would have refused.
Fired for dishonesty
After the investigation, Safeway felt G.H. had been dishonest by allowing the transactions because she should have at least suspected the fraud. Together with the fact she had just been warned against serving a family member and also violated the credit card policy, it felt G.H. had compromised a “cornerstone policy” of Safeway — honesty among its employees, of which all employees were aware. G.H. was fired for dishonest conduct on Sept. 28, 2006.
The union filed a grievance, saying the violation of the family members purchase policy could not be used as a ground for dismissal as it wasn’t indicated as a reason for dismissal in her letter. It also argued allowing credit card transactions without a card was not grounds for dismissal because other employees had only received verbal warnings.
Three months after G.H.’s termination, her union arranged a psychological assessment. The doctor determined she suffered from a condition similar to battered wife syndrome, which affected her judgment and made her more vulnerable to abuse and demands by others such as her son and his ex-wife. He said that with counselling, she should be able to resist such demands, particularly since she had resolved to break ties with her son.
Misconduct not dishonest but an error in judgment
The board agreed G.H. didn’t know the credit card transactions were fraudulent, but she should have been suspicious and her familiarity with her ex-daughter-in-law put her in a different position than the other employees who accepted the numbers.
However, the board found G.H.’s allowance of the transactions came out of her fear of her ex-daughter-in-law’s potential reaction and, since the transaction was validated electronically, she had no reason to suspect fraud. It accepted that in the circumstances, it didn’t occur to her the numbers were stolen.
“I find no dishonesty in (G.H.’s) assumption that since the card was electronically validated, it was legitimate,” the board said. “She was not the only one who made this assumption.”
The board didn’t find any evidence in G.H.’s medical treatment of signs that she was physically abused and therefore didn’t accept battered spouse syndrome as a possible justification for her conduct. The stress of her termination could have skewed the results of her psychological test, the board said, creating enough doubt that it couldn’t accept those results. However, the board did accept G.H. was a victim of her son and his ex-wife that made her psychologically vulnerable, which made it more difficult for her to deal with her ex-daughter-in-law when she showed up at her till the second time.
The board found G.H.’s participation in the two transactions and the resulting violations of Safeway’s policies, along with disobeying a direct order from the assistant manager, were serious enough to warrant discipline. However, Safeway’s reason for discharge was based on her being dishonest, which was not the case.
“(G.H.’s) errors of judgment, while serious, and providing grounds for discipline, do not reach a level of misconduct that justifies discharge,” the board said.
The board found, in G.H.’s favour, the fact she worked for Safeway for 12 years without previous discipline and readily acknowledged her misconduct were additional factors in considering discharge as excessive. However, significant discipline was reasonable and the board ruled a six-month suspension without pay should be substituted for G.H.’s termination. It ordered Safeway to reinstate her and pay her compensation after six months from when she was fired.
“The transgressions were of a serious nature and resulted in consequential loss to the employer,” the board said.
The board added a condition to G.H.’s reinstatement in light of her ongoing psychological vulnerability, ordering her to attend counselling on the boundaries between herself and her son and ex-daughter-in-law for at least one year.
For more information see:
•Canada Safeway Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local 401, 2008 CarswellAlta 712 (Alta. Arb. Bd.).
Can being bullied be an excuse for employee misconduct? Not in the case of one Alberta grocery store cashier, who violated her store’s policy on serving family members by looking after her troubled son’s ex-wife. She then violated another policy by allowing the woman to pay with credit card numbers without an actual card. After being warned about it, she served her ex-daughter-in-law again less than a week later.
When the numbers turned out to be stolen, the cashier admitted her misconduct but said she was afraid of her former in-law, who along with her son was a drug addict and abusive towards her. However, the store felt the incidents showed dishonesty on her part and fired her.
The arbitration board found the cashier’s fear didn’t excuse the fact she knew what she was doing and should have been more responsible. However, it didn’t think she was being dishonest and, considering that was the main reason for the firing, ordered reinstatement with alternate discipline.
When employees are aware of what they’re doing, they are responsible for their misconduct regardless of their state of mind, but employers firing someone must be sure the employment relationship is irreversibly damaged. Otherwise, an arbitrator might find alternative discipline would suffice.
An Alberta woman has been suspended from work for letting her abusive ex-daughter-in-law bully her into processing fraudulent credit card transactions at her grocery store. However, she might consider herself fortunate since she was actually fired for the transgression until the Alberta Arbitration Board had its say.
G.H., 59, worked at Safeway in Edmonton as a cashier for 12 years. She was married to an abusive husband until he died in 1996. Her son became a drug addict and he and his wife often stayed with her, asking her for money for drugs and subjecting her to physical and verbal abuse. As a result, G.H. became fearful of both her son and his wife, who he divorced but reconciled with in 2006, with her moving back into G.H.’s home.
G.H.’s problems led to bouts of depression. In 2003, she went on short-term disability after her doctor felt it was bad enough that she couldn’t work. Her problems with her son and his ex-wife were known to Safeway staff, as both often came into the store to ask her for money, sometimes creating a scene. The store manager and assistant manager both recommended she use Safeway’s employee assistance plan for help, but she didn’t follow up.
Troubled son’s ex-wife had credit card numbers on piece of paper
On Sept. 6, 2006, her son’s ex-wife came to her till to pay for some groceries. Her former daughter-in-law said she wanted to pay by credit card but didn’t have the card with her. Instead, she had some numbers written down on a piece of paper. G.H. accepted the numbers, which were validated to complete the transaction, worth $187.25.
The assistant manager saw the transaction and recognized G.H.’s daughter-in-law. He told G.H. Safeway policy stipulated cashiers were not supposed to serve family members and she could be fired for violating the policy. G.H. knew of the policy and acknowledged her breach, later apologizing to the assistant manager. At the time, the assistant manager didn’t know G.H. had performed the transaction without an actual credit card, which was also against policy.
Six days later, on Sept. 12, G.H.’s ex-daughter-in-law returned and put her groceries on G.H.’s counter while G.H. was serving another customer. When she got to the register, a lineup had formed behind her, so G.H. served her, despite the fact she knew she shouldn’t. Once again, her ex-daughter-in-law provided a piece of paper with numbers instead of a credit card. G.H. processed the transaction, worth $230.25, and once again it was approved electronically.
A supervisor noticed the transaction and reported it to the store manager, who was aware of the warning G.H. had received the previous week. He asked Safeway security to investigate the two transactions and it was discovered the numbers had been stolen from the card holder and both transactions were fraudulent.
Investigation uncovers fraud
Further investigation revealed G.H.’s son and his ex-wife had made four other fraudulent purchases at Safeway with the stolen numbers with other employees totalling more than $600. None of the other employees were disciplined for following through on the transactions without the actual card because the numbers hadn’t been reported as stolen and were approved electronically.
However, G.H.’s transactions involved a family member, which was a violation of company policy. The company also felt it was more serious because she knew it was unlikely either her son or his ex-wife would have a credit card because of their financial situation. The company knew employees often face pressure from family members to do dishonest things at the till but they are expected to resist.
On Sept. 22, 2006, G.H. was interviewed by Safeway’s security investigator. She acknowledged she knew the company’s rules and agreed she acted improperly. She said she didn’t do it intentionally, but “it just happened” and she apologized. G.H. said she went through with both transactions because she was afraid her ex-daughter-in-law would “make a scene.” She also said if she knew she would be fired for serving her ex-daughter-in-law, she would have refused.
Fired for dishonesty
After the investigation, Safeway felt G.H. had been dishonest by allowing the transactions because she should have at least suspected the fraud. Together with the fact she had just been warned against serving a family member and also violated the credit card policy, it felt G.H. had compromised a “cornerstone policy” of Safeway — honesty among its employees, of which all employees were aware. G.H. was fired for dishonest conduct on Sept. 28, 2006.
The union filed a grievance, saying the violation of the family members purchase policy could not be used as a ground for dismissal as it wasn’t indicated as a reason for dismissal in her letter. It also argued allowing credit card transactions without a card was not grounds for dismissal because other employees had only received verbal warnings.
Three months after G.H.’s termination, her union arranged a psychological assessment. The doctor determined she suffered from a condition similar to battered wife syndrome, which affected her judgment and made her more vulnerable to abuse and demands by others such as her son and his ex-wife. He said that with counselling, she should be able to resist such demands, particularly since she had resolved to break ties with her son.
Misconduct not dishonest but an error in judgment
The board agreed G.H. didn’t know the credit card transactions were fraudulent, but she should have been suspicious and her familiarity with her ex-daughter-in-law put her in a different position than the other employees who accepted the numbers.
However, the board found G.H.’s allowance of the transactions came out of her fear of her ex-daughter-in-law’s potential reaction and, since the transaction was validated electronically, she had no reason to suspect fraud. It accepted that in the circumstances, it didn’t occur to her the numbers were stolen.
“I find no dishonesty in (G.H.’s) assumption that since the card was electronically validated, it was legitimate,” the board said. “She was not the only one who made this assumption.”
The board didn’t find any evidence in G.H.’s medical treatment of signs that she was physically abused and therefore didn’t accept battered spouse syndrome as a possible justification for her conduct. The stress of her termination could have skewed the results of her psychological test, the board said, creating enough doubt that it couldn’t accept those results. However, the board did accept G.H. was a victim of her son and his ex-wife that made her psychologically vulnerable, which made it more difficult for her to deal with her ex-daughter-in-law when she showed up at her till the second time.
The board found G.H.’s participation in the two transactions and the resulting violations of Safeway’s policies, along with disobeying a direct order from the assistant manager, were serious enough to warrant discipline. However, Safeway’s reason for discharge was based on her being dishonest, which was not the case.
“(G.H.’s) errors of judgment, while serious, and providing grounds for discipline, do not reach a level of misconduct that justifies discharge,” the board said.
The board found, in G.H.’s favour, the fact she worked for Safeway for 12 years without previous discipline and readily acknowledged her misconduct were additional factors in considering discharge as excessive. However, significant discipline was reasonable and the board ruled a six-month suspension without pay should be substituted for G.H.’s termination. It ordered Safeway to reinstate her and pay her compensation after six months from when she was fired.
“The transgressions were of a serious nature and resulted in consequential loss to the employer,” the board said.
The board added a condition to G.H.’s reinstatement in light of her ongoing psychological vulnerability, ordering her to attend counselling on the boundaries between herself and her son and ex-daughter-in-law for at least one year.
For more information see:
•Canada Safeway Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local 401, 2008 CarswellAlta 712 (Alta. Arb. Bd.).
