The grievor was terminated for allegedly neglecting her job of screening baggage at an airport while chatting with a coworker. The arbitrator found that any inattention was not deliberate and that termination was too severe a penalty.
An airport security Screening Officer was fired for violating standard operating procedures after it was determined that her attention was focused on a conversation she was having with a co-worker rather than on the baggage being processed by the X-ray scanner.
K.C. was employed as a Screening Officer at a large airport. K.C. had been trained and recertified as required by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA). She had seven years’ service when she was fired on Dec. 1, 2011. There was no discipline on her record.
On Nov. 18, 2011, a CATSA Oversight Officer (OO) was making her rounds of the terminal to monitor employee performance and ensure compliance with CATSA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).
The OO observed K.C. in conversation with another co-worker at Line One. Brief conversations — not exceeding 10 seconds — were not cause for concern. However, when the OO observed the same conversation going on when she passed by Line One again after she completed her rounds, the OO scrutinized K.C.’s performance.
The OO said she observed that K.C.’s head was turned away from the X-ray monitor. Luggage and trays were piling up and K.C. was not examining bags, according to the OO.
Relieved from duty
The OO reported K.C. She was relieved from duty and directed to write a report. A supervisor was present and K.C. offered an apology for talking. Her written report acknowledged that she was talking with her co-worker but she insisted that she maintained her full attention on the task of screening. K.C. returned to work.
Supervisory staff viewed the video footage on Nov. 23 and decided that K.C.’s performance constituted gross negligence and blatant disregard of CATSA SOP.
K.C. was fired. The union grieved.
The employer said that K.C. failed to properly screen every bag that went through the scanner. This was a direct violation of SOP and, therefore, a breach of the terms and conditions of her employment.
K.C.’s denials in the face of the evidence were not credible and constituted another breach of trust. K.C.’s actions endangered the flying public and the employer’s reputation. The need to maintain a credible deterrence called for a significant disciplinary response in the circumstances, the employer said. The fact that K.C. did not own up to her errors and attempted to shift the blame meant there was no way to restore the employment relationship. Termination was warranted, the employer said.
Good employment record
The union said that there was no misconduct and no cause for discipline. K.C. did not initiate the conversation and SOP did not prohibit workers from speaking to each other. The union challenged the employer’s assessment of the video evidence and asserted that it drew the wrong conclusions. The union said that the employer was out to make an example of K.C. for the purposes of deterrence. The employer’s disciplinary response failed to take into account K.C.’s credentials, her length of service and her good employment record.
The Arbitrator said that K.C. failed to maintain the level of focus that was required by SOP. She was guilty of culpable misconduct and discipline was warranted.
However, the Arbitrator said that termination was excessive in the circumstances. The employer’s case for termination rested on believing that K.C. deliberately passed baggage through the scanner without analyzing them and then lying about it.
The Arbitrator said that the video evidence did not support that conclusion.
“In my view, because I have concluded that the Grievor’s conduct was not a deliberate act… and that it is not likely that the Grievor will make a similar mistake in the future, I find the discharge of [K.C.] to be an excessive response in consideration of all of the relevant circumstances.”
K.C. was ordered reinstated. The termination was rescinded and K.C. was assessed a 30-day suspension.
Reference: G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Transportation District 140. Ronald S. Keras — Sole Arbitrator. Andrew D. Brine for the Employer. Leah Terai for the Union. July 13, 2012. 72 pp.
