Canadian Employment Law Today - sample

Co-op felt the early January incident with expired coupons wasn't a big concern, but the free case of pop incident was an example of KW intentionally giving away product and disregarding direction from her super - visor. is constituted "an act of dishonesty and a breach of trust" that warranted termi- nation of employment. Store management also considered KW's unwillingness to ac- cept responsibility as a factor that irrepa- rably harmed the employment relationship — she kept blaming someone or something else, such as her medical problems, incon- sistent instructions, a misunderstanding, or the loss of her father. On Feb. 16, Co-op ter- minated KW's employment. No dishonest intentions: Union KW's union grieved the dismissal, arguing KW had no dishonest intentions and she genuinely believed the fair pricing policy applied, she misunderstood the supervi- sor's instructions, and she was concerned with providing the best customer service. e arbitrator agreed that employee theft "is a major violation of the employee-employ- er relationship" and often justified termina- tion. e process known as "sweethearting" — improperly and intentionally discounting or giving away product to someone they know — is a particular type of theft in the retail food industry and a concern of Co-op when KW pointed out the customer's relation to a co- worker. However, there was a question as to KW's intentions and whether theft was a part of those intentions, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator found that there was no question the pop the customer was trying to purchase wasn't on sale and the price check confirmed that. e supervisor also con - firmed that the pop wasn't on sale. However, when the customer said she had been told by another supervisor the previous week that Citrus Wave pop was going to be on sale, "a seed was planted" in KW's mind that the pop was on sale — her explanation as to why she gave a free case to the customer was the customer's belief that the pop was in fact on sale and her inability to understand how all the other flavours could be on sale but not that one, the arbitrator said. KW's actions in the transaction all point - ed to the fact she believed the Citrus Wave pop should be on sale and in her mind, the price fairness policy should be implemented, despite the fact the price was confirmed and the supervisor told her the scanned price was correct. She followed through with this belief when she failed to follow the super - visor's instructions to charge the customer $2.99 for each of the cases and instead pro- vided one for free, said the arbitrator. Despite this misconduct, the arbitrator found that termination of employment was too harsh. e arbitrator noted that KW's actions were keeping in line with her "cus - tomers first, Co-op second" approach, which had been essentially condoned by the store — she had been spoken to about overdo- ing things, but not disciplined for anything, including the expired coupons incident two weeks before the free case of pop incident. In addition, the arbitrator noted that KW's misconduct was motived by her "customers first" policy and not any intention of "sweet - hearting." However, though she may have believed the price fairness policy applied, she made "a serious error of judgment" by not seeking authorization or clarification — giving away product because of a scanning error always required authorization from a supervisor or manager. e arbitrator found KW's misconduct was serious and warranted a lengthy penalty in the range of a six-month suspension, but Co-op violated the collective agreement by not telling her the interview was a security interview and not sharing the information it had gathered in its investigation prior to her termination. In addition, there was no indi - cation to KW that her job was in jeopardy and she had never been disciplined before. e arbitrator reduced the appropriate suspension length by two months and de - termined that a four-month suspension be substituted for dismissal, with KW reinstat- ed and compensated for lost wages and ben- efits, minus four months for the suspension. For more information see: • Calgary Co-operative Assn. Ltd. and Union of Calgary Employees (KW), Re, 2018 Car- swellAlta 1634 (Alta. Arb.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 October 10, 2018 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: SHEILA FITZGERALD/SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR JEFFREY R. SMITH Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.

• Cover