Canadian Employment Law Today

Employer too quick to accuse worker of theft Company had reasons for suspicions but investigation was botched, leaving facts that would have absolved worker undiscovered BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A Saskatchewan employer wrong- fully dismissed a worker when it failed to properly investigate its suspicions that the worker stole stock from its property, an arbitration board has ruled. Greg Snaith began working as a delivery driv - er at the Prince Albert, Sask., Co-op Home and Agro Centre in 2005. In 2011 he was promoted to yard foreman. e new position involved supervising the receipt of customer orders coming from the manufacturer, and inspecting, storing and loading product for delivery to customers' contractors. Snaith had no discipline on his record. When he started working for the co-op cen - tre, he signed an acknowledgment that he was aware of its loss prevention policy and its zero tolerance of internal theft. Common procedure at the co-op's yard was for customer orders to be accompa - nied by an invoice when delivered to a cus- tomer's worksite. For windows, the serial number was on a label stuck to the glass with information on the customer number and the centre's number. Windows also in - cluded a tag on the jamb or frame with the customer's name. Window orders were stacked in a rack, but sometimes the racks were full and some windows put down somewhere else. is could result in broken or missing windows. Snaith was building a new home, and set up an agreement with management to purchase a large amount of supplies from the centre. An account was set up for him and whenever materials were delivered to Snaith's worksite, the new home sales esti - mator — who worked closely with Snaith —would bill his account. Invoices were sent at the end of each month and Snaith would pay the amount on each invoice. Worker ordered items from employer In January 2013, Snaith indicated he wanted to buy some windows to use in the construction that summer. e estimator told him he could use two windows from a customer's order that had recently been returned to the yard rather than buy new ones. is allowed Snaith to get a deal on the windows and the co-op centre to use up old stock. e estimator wrote up a quote form, crossed out two of the windows Snaith re - quested and wrote a note to use two of the windows from the returned stock. He then told Snaith to set aside the windows and Snaith asked him to get a price for them. e final order was for seven windows and three doors. Snaith's order arrived at the centre in ear - ly August 2013. Around that time, Snaith did a routine warehouse check and noticed the two windows he had set aside were missing. He reported this to the estimator and remarked that "the way things go miss - ing around here we should look for them on Kijiji." e estimator thought Snaith had said he had found some windows on the Kijiji online trading website and thought it was unusual to say. Later, Snaith found about 100 dirty win - dows in front of the warehouse with no tags on the jamb and not on a rack. He wrote "sold" on two of them with a marker, then told the estimator about them and asked him to give him a price. However, the esti - mator didn't respond. Snaith requested his order of windows and doors to be delivered on Sept. 30. He had to drive a delivery truck that day and couldn't be at the yard, so he showed an - other staff member where his order was, including the two replacement windows, making no attempt to conceal anything in the order. e order was loaded and deliv - ered by other employees while Snaith was out in the truck. Before Snaith left, he asked the estimator to bill him for his windows. e estimator prepared the invoice, which totaled more than $8,000. However, the two replacement windows weren't included. ough the delivery was made on Sept. 30, the estimator dated the invoice Oct. 1, which means Snaith wouldn't receive it until the end of October. Missing windows raised suspicions On Oct. 21, a large window order from another customer was called for delivery. ree of the windows were missing from the yard. One was later found at the cus- tomer's site, but two remained missing. Snaith reported the missing windows to the estimator and referred to a recent break-in when the windows could have been stolen. e co-op centre operations manager didn't think the windows had been stolen in the break-in, as the hole in the fence was too small to pull the windows through. He and the estimator, along with Snaith's supervi - sor, became suspicious since Snaith hadn't reported any missing inventory after the break-in and the missing windows were the exact kind Snaith had ordered for his home. e operations manager decided to check out Snaith's construction site. He found the contractor's key and let himself in to look around. Once he returned, he checked Snaith's invoices to see if two windows had been billed, which of course they had not ONE THING consistent with situations where an employee is suspected of misconduct is that before any decision is made, the employer must conduct a fair and reasonable investigation so it has all the relevant facts. This includes interviewing potential witnesses, checking records, and getting the employee's side of the story. It doesn't matter how serious the misconduct is. Getting the facts straight should be a priority, because a wrongful accusation and dismissal can like throwing fuel on the fire. BACKGROUND 4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CASE IN POINT: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL The employer suspended the worker pending further investigation but didn't proceed as it didn't want to interfere with the police investigation.

• Cover