Canadian Labour Reporter

6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 September 7, 2015 and propane and cause significant damage or harm. However, the firecracker was the only thing that exploded, and following an investigation and ter- mination, Allen filed a wrongful termination grievance alongside the local chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union. While the UFCW did not deny the grievor's actions were wrong, it said termination was excessive and it argued Allen should be re- instated with a discipline penalty. Though the firecracker was hazardous and a poor decision, it should not have been considered "extremely dangerous" — and the onus was on the employer to prove it was, which the union said it had not provided such adequate proof. Further, the employee was off- duty at the time of the incident. According to the employer, the grievor had a history of bad be- haviour. He had been repeatedly late for work and on one occasion, walked off his shift early without permission. As a result he was suspended for two weeks and shortly follow- ing his return, he was given a poor performance evaluation rating. Arbitrator sides with employer The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, even though William Hood said Saskatoon Co-opera- tive had exaggerated the serious- ness of the incident. "We accept there was a po- tential for damage to person and property," the decision reads. "It will come as no surprise to anyone that a gas bar is not an appropriate location to ignite a firecracker. The potential extent and possibility of such damage is merely conjecture in this case." However, the grievor had been trained in the handling of flam- mable and explosive materials — he either knew or ought to have known his behaviour was reck- less, Hood said. "Why would anyone, let alone an employee, think it is safe or the right thing to do to set off a fire- cracker at a gas bar?" he added. Though it wasn't as serious as it could have been, the incident was still a hazardous one, and given Allen's past record, the grievance was dismissed. Reference: Saskatoon Co-operative Association and the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1400. William Hood — arbitrator. Rebecca Macaulay for the employer, Jim Bitinsky for the union. Aug. 10, 2015. Coverup leads to termination at University of Manitoba A UNIVERSITY of Manitoba employee was terminated after he tampered with confidential data in an effort to conceal his romantic affair. A.B. was a senior technology transfer specialist working in the University of Manitoba Technol- ogy Transfer Office (TTO) when he was fired on Feb. 14, 2014. He was dismissed for insubordination following the destruction of em- ployer data. In October 2013, A.B. was called into a meeting with his di- rector after his cell phone bill was flagged for excessive personal calls totalling more than 3,000 minutes. A.B. was warned it constituted an inappropriate use of the employer- owned technology and he prom- ised not to use the phone for per- sonal calls in the future. Because of the pattern of the calls — which were all to and from one number — A.B.'s director sus- pected the grievor was person- ally involved with someone in an extramarital affair. Following the meeting, he advised A.B. to "be careful." Concerned that his phone re- cords were being inspected, A.B. looked into the employer's system and discovered all TTO phone records were stored on a shared drive. He decided to modify his phone bill records so that only the front page, with the account summary, would be visible on the shared drive and all detailed pages containing personal information would be deleted. A.B. copied the files from the shared drive onto his own com- puter and created a script that would delete the detail pages. Af- ter completing the task, he real- ized the script had altered not just his phone bill records but those of all TTO employees. On Jan. 21, 2014, the altera- tion was flagged by the employ- er. When it was discovered the changes were made using the grievor's computer, a meeting was called with A.B., management and a union representative on Feb. 12. When confronted with the information, A.B. argued the re- cords should not have been on a shared drive in the first place, due to privacy concerns. He said he did not mean to make changes to all of the records, and had only intended to make the changes to his own re- cords. He would later testify this was an attempt to conceal his rela- tionship. The employer informed A.B. that he would be placed on a paid leave of absence as it conducted an investigation to ensure no other university data had been compro- mised. He was instructed to turn in his cell phone and computer. A.B. returned to his office to re- trieve his phone and was followed by the director. Before handing in his phone, A.B. wiped the device of all data and re-set it to factory status while the director stood by, repeatedly ordering him to stop. A.B. then forced a hard shutdown of his computer and left the prem- ises. The following day, the employer attempted to review A.B.'s emails to ensure no confidential informa- tion had been lost. However, the computer would not start and it was suggested the computer may have been tampered with. Because the phone had been wiped and the computer was non-operational, no investigation could be con- ducted. On Feb. 14, A.B. was fired for insubordination. His union, the Association of Employees Sup- porting Education Services, filed a grievance on his behalf and re- quested his termination be substi- tuted with a suspension. The union emphasized A.B.'s long service and lack of previous discipline. The union argued the issue at hand had nothing to do with confidential university infor- mation but was a strictly personal matter. A.B.'s actions were driven by his concern for his personal pri- vacy. When he discovered his per- sonal information was being shared on a public drive, he edited those documents to hide personal information. When he was told his cell phone and computer were be- ing confiscated for search, with no assurance of privacy, he panicked and deleted his personal data. There was no repeated disobedi- ence, the union argued, and no reason to believe the employment relationship was irreparably dam- aged. The employer, however, dis- agreed. Employees in the TTO were responsible for confidential information and worked largely unsupervised. A.B.'s actions had broken the trust between employ- er and employee. The grievor had shown no remorse and refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. While arbitrator Arne Peltz sympathized with A.B.'s desire to shield his personal life, he said the grievor "acted unilaterally, sur- reptitiously and entirely without authorization." The alteration of records alone might not have been found to war- rant termination, but considered together with the wiping of the grievor's phone, Peltz found that A.B.'s actions did "create a work- place problem too severe to per- mit the contract of employment to continue." The grievance was dismissed. Reference: University of Manitoba and the Association of Employees Supporting Educational Services. Arne Peltz — arbi- trator. Ken Maclean for the employer, Tony Marques for the union. July 2, 2015. ARBITRATION AWARDS < from pg. 1

• Cover