Video appeared on the news depicting worker mistreating customer packages and not using proper unloading procedure
This instalment of You Make the Call involves an employee who was caught on video violating company policy.
The 50-year-old worker was a depot sorter for Purolator in Prince George, B.C. His job involved securing aircraft that flew into the Prince George facility and unloading freight into vans with a hydraulic belt-loader. Purolator’s approved unloading process required using the belt-loader and other methods were discouraged. If the belt-loader had mechanical issues, a substitute belt-loader was available for rental from an airline that used the facility. If the substitute belt-loader wasn’t available, the freight was to be returned on the aircraft — though there was no evidence this had ever happened.
The worker received a one-day suspension in December 2014 for failing to put away the belt-loader when it wasn’t in use.
In November 2014, the unit manager reminded employees that they worked in a “fishbowl” and their actions could be seen by anyone nearby with a cellphone. He also told them they must never unload freight without using a belt-loader. In addition, the employee handbook stated that “customer shipments must not be thrown or mishandled in any way.”
On March 15, 2015, a news program aired a video from the Prince George facility recorded on a cellphone. The video depicted a Purolator employee tossing packages to the worker who then tossed them into a van. The hydraulic belt-loader could be seen off to one side and two other employees were present.
The manager of Purolator’s air division saw the broadcast in Ontario and called the worker’s manager about the violation of company protocol. Three of the four employees in the video were identified and interviewed separately via conference call. In his interview, the worker acknowledged he shouldn’t have been unloading without a belt-loader and admitted he would be “PO’d” if someone handled his goods that way.
On March 18, all three employees were dismissed, including the worker. The worker’s letter of termination stated that he was identified in a video from a television broadcast mishandling freight and he was unable to provide an explanation for his actions. His “blatant disregard for the safekeeping of customer freight” diminished Purolator’s brand and reputation and warranted immediate dismissal, the letter concluded.
A few weeks later, two of the employees were reinstated after reaching settlement agreements. The union filed a grievance on behalf of the worker, pointing to a March 2014 incident where an employee who had intentionally thrown packages from a table towards mail slots and into a cage on the floor was suspended for five days rather than fired. It also argued that Purolator was lenient with regards to the use of a belt-loader in certain circumstances when it had mechanical problems, so it wasn’t treated as a “blanket rule.”
You Make the Call
Was dismissal uncalled for?
OR
Was dismissal justified?
If you said dismissal was uncalled for, you’re correct. The arbitrator found that the way Purolator treated past instances of employees throwing freight as well as its actions in this case demonstrated that the company viewed such misconduct at “relatively minor.”
The arbitrator noted that the company’s investigation into the matter consisted of a single interview of each employee identified and it was via conference call, not even in person. In addition, it was initiated by the manager of the air division in Ontario who initiated the process, not the unit managers in Prince George. There was nothing indicating the unit managers had any meaningful input into the decision to terminate, said the arbitrator.
Purolator’s history addressing similar instances of misconduct was also telling. There were other examples of employees failing to use the belt-loader, but this resulted in suspension, not dismissal. The worker himself had a one-day suspension on his record, but jumping to dismissal after that would require serious misconduct, especially since the previous discipline wasn’t related to throwing packages, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found the three employees in this instance were singled out because they were recorded on video that was broadcast. Even then, two were reinstated with a settlement. In addition, the worker acknowledged his misconduct, even if it wasn’t a full-blown apology. Given the relatively minor nature of the misconduct and the lack of any similar misconduct on the worker’s record, the employment relationship wasn’t irreparably damaged, said the arbitrator.
Purolator was ordered to reinstate the worker with a three-day suspension on his record — “consistent with the principles of progressive discipline” — and compensation for lost wages and benefits. The arbitrator denied the union’s claim for additional damages for the manner of dismissal, finding no bad faith on the part of the company.
For more information see:
