Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.
Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/700848
been since the estimator had forgotten to do so on Sept. 30. e co-op centre called the police on Oct. 24 to report a theft of the windows. When the police visited him, Snaith understood what was happening and called the opera - tions manager to tell him he took the two windows, but the estimator had forgotten to invoice him. He also explained they had no tags and had been in the yard for a long time. e police charged Snaith with possession of stolen property under $5,000 and the co- op center suspended him until further inves - tigation. However, it didn't conduct a further investigation as it didn't want to interfere with the police investigation. Since Snaith had admitted to taking the windows and it had a zero-tolerance theft policy, it termi - nated Snaith's employment effective Oct. 31. e arbitration board found that the co- op centre was too hasty when it jumped to the conclusion that Snaith had stolen the windows. is conclusion was based on two flimsy pieces of evidence — a secondhand report that Snaith had mentioned windows on Kijiji and the fact that the missing win - dows were the same size Snaith needed. e operations manager decided to go to Snaith's construction site and conduct sur- veillance and invade his privacy rather than check to see whether Snaith had loaded his own order — which he hadn't, though it was assumed he had. He also failed to check to see whether the invoice had been delivered to Snaith — which it hadn't, meaning Snaith didn't have the opportunity to correct the mistake. Finally, the board noted the co-op centre didn't ask Snaith about the windows to get his side of the story. e board found the co-op centre had some reason to be suspicious, since there were two windows missing that were the kind required by Snaith for his home con - struction and Snaith's position gave him control over inventory, in addition to his Ki- jiji comment. However, it failed to properly investigate the situation and therefore could not prove on a balance of probabilities that Slaith stole the windows, said the board. e failure to properly investigate includ - ed not checking the invoices, not getting Slaith's side of the story, and not talking to the estimator who neglected to include the windows on the invoice. A simple investiga - tion would have shed light on the circum- stances as well as the fact that Snaith made no attempts to hide that he was taking the windows, said the board. In addition, the board pointed out that Snaith had a clean disciplinary record, plac - ing a further onus on the co-op centre to prove Snaith was guilty of misconduct seri- ous enough to justify dismissal. e board determined the employer did not establish such proof and ordered Slaith reinstated with compensation for loss of pay since his dismissal. For more information see: • Prince Albert Co-Operative Assn. Ltd. and RWDSU, Local 496 (Snaith), Re, 2016 Car- swellSask 282 (Sask. Arb.). CREDIT: NICOLESA/SHUTTERSTOCK Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 July 20, 2016 | Canadian Employment Law Today 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.