Return to sender

Parcel service driver fails to deliver

RICHARD CHANDLER WAS hired as a driver for the United Parcel Service of Canada in November of 1993. Almost two decades later, on Nov. 3, 2011, he was fired after failing to deliver his assigned parcels and falsifying documents in an effort to hide it.

Drivers record the delivery of each parcel by scanning it with a Delivery Information Acquisition Device (DIAD), which electronically records the time and address at which the driver delivered each parcel.

The DIAD creates a Driver Stop Detail report containing this information. When a driver is unable to deliver a package, it is entered into the DIAD as a "missed" parcel.

On Nov. 2, 2011, Chandler’s report contained two significant irregularities. First, there is a gap of more than three hours in which no packages were delivered. Drivers are allotted one hour for lunch and are expected to be delivering packages at all other times. Chandler testified he did make deliveries throughout this gap, saying the DIAD must have malfunctioned.

The second irregularity involved the final entry on the Driver Stop Detail report. Between 8:02 p.m. and 8:15 p.m. Chandler scanned 35 parcels as having been "futured" to the address 69 Amy Woodbridge.

Parcels can only be futured if they meet a set of strict requirements. The customer must specifically tell the driver they do not want to accept the parcel on the day it is delivered, and request the parcel be re-delivered on a future date.

Direct contact with the customer is required for a driver to enter a parcel as having been futured — along with the requested date for re-delivery — in the DIAD.

On the morning of Nov. 3, 2011, centre manager Sean Giffin noticed Chandler had futured 35 parcels to 69 Amy Woodbridge, a residential address. Griffin testified this struck him as odd, because it is rare for a residential address to receive so many parcels, let alone futured parcels.

Griffin investigated and found the 35 parcels were addressed to 26 different customers, none at 69 Amy Woodbridge. Griffin testified he became concerned Chandler had marked the parcels as futured, rather than missed, to cover up the fact he had not attempted to deliver them.

This falsification of documents is very serious, Griffin testified, because if the customers tracked their parcels online to find out where they were, the online tracker would indicate the customers had received their parcel at 69 Amy Woodbridge and that the customers themselves had requested the parcels be re-delivered at a future date.

When confronted with the report Chandler admitted he had not attempted to deliver the parcels to the proper customers. He was dismissed for dishonesty and the falsification of company records.

The Canadian Council of Teamsters Local 938 grieved on Chandler’s behalf, alleging he had been unjustly discharged.

Chandler testified his supervisor, Rui Martino, instructed him to future parcels he couldn’t deliver rather than enter them into the system as missed packages.

Chandler testified Martino’s bonus is based, at least in part, on the number of parcels recorded as missed. Chandler could not remember when or where Martina told him to mark parcels as futured rather than as missed.

Martino denied the allegation and the employer submitted Chandler decided on his own to future the parcels in an effort to cover up the fact he had not attempted to deliver them. The employer further submitted Chandler lied about the alleged instructions from Martino for the same reason.

Chandler was previously fired for falsification of documents on Sept. 1, 2011. He returned to work subject to a "last chance agreement," signed on Oct. 17, 2011.

The last chance agreement was intended to be active for 12 months following its signing and required Chandler to re-sign the company’s Honesty and Integrity Policy. The employer and union agreed any breach of the last chance agreement would result in termination.

Chandler missed several days of work between his reinstatement on October 18, 2011, and his dismissal on Nov. 3, 2011, and as a result did not re-sign the Honesty and Integrity Policy.

The union argued Chandler’s failure to re-sign the Honesty and Integrity Policy rendered the last chance agreement void and unenforceable. The employer submitted the re-signing was not subject to a deadline and further argued the last chance agreement was in no way contingent upon Chandler’s re-signing.

Sole arbitrator Peter F. Chauvin ruled the employer had just cause in dismissing Chandler, saying, "I conclude that the grievor chose to improperly future the parcels on his own, possibly because he was behind on his deliveries, and given that he had just been reinstated to work pursuant to the last chance agreement, he felt that it was better to attempt to conceal his inability to make all of his deliveries."

The grievance was dismissed.

Reference: United Parcel Service of Canada and Canadian Council of Teamsters Local 938. Peter F. Chauvin — arbitrator. Denis Manzo and Veronica Kenny for the employer, Ryan D. White for the union. Nov. 10, 2013.

Latest stories