Canadian Labour Reporter - sample

worked throughout the plant. Employees were also allowed to use the company vehicle for com- pany business and employees were scanned when they entered or left the plant. On Oct. 7, 2013, an anonymous note was left under the com- pany's ethics advisor's door. The note stated that 10 days earlier, La'Frenais and another employee had taken a two-door freezer and a pizza oven that had been re- moved from their locations inside the plant and placed outside. The note also said the items were in use at another business. Management checked sur- veillance footage and observed Le'Frenais and the other employ- ee loading equipment into a com- pany truck on the day in question, with La'Frenais getting behind the wheel, and returning 75 minutes later. Their lunch break was sup- posed to be 30 minutes. They didn't check into security on the way out, only when they returned. There was no evidence the freezer or oven had been ap- proved to be taken. Standard pro- cedure for permission to decom- mission and remove equipment involved approval forms that had to be checked by security on the way out. This ensured only ap- proved and safe items were taken off Boeing property. The two employees were in- terviewed on Nov. 14 with rep- resentatives from Unifor pres- ent. La'Frenais explained that the freezer and oven were garbage — the freezer in particular had been sitting outside for a month and needed repairs — and he assumed his co-worker had a removal per- mit and he showed it to security. He said they delivered the items on their lunch break to the co- worker's father-in-law's business, which happened to be near a loca- tion where he had to pick up ceil- ing tiles for a job back at the plant. The tile pickup was the reason they took longer than their lunch break, said La'Frenais. Management observed La'Frenais as "flustered, uncoop- erative, and evasive to some of the questions." Boeing contacted the police and the items were located at the business. The company hired a mover to return the items. Man- agement also checked invoices for ceiling tiles and none were picked up on the day in question, nor had anyone instructed him to pick up the tiles. The company reviewed La'Frenais' disciplinary file — which included a written warning for not wearing a seatbelt and a three-day suspension for yelling at the safety team while driving. Boeing deterimined La'Frenais had deliberately broken compa- ny rules and violated its trust by stealing its property. Given his uncooperative be- haviour in the investigative inter- view, Boeing felt it couldn't trust him to return to the workplace. It terminated La'Frenais' employ- ment a few days later. Unifor said the oven had sat unused for more than a year and La'Frenais had assumed it was to be scrapped, as that was the usual fate for equipment in such situations. He had no intention to take either piece of equipment, it was his co-worker who wanted it. He claimed his co-worker ap- proached him and asked him to take the items to his father-in- law's business during lunch. He said he agreed because he was picking up tiles nearby. He also said he didn't ask to see a removal form because it was not his role to see it. La'Frenais acknowledged knowing about the property re- moval form and process, but claimed he assumed his co-work- er had filled out a form and re- ceived approval. He stood by his story in the in- terview and said at no time was he dishonest. Arbitrator Michael Werier had trouble believing La'Frenais' ver- sion of events. He found it was an unbelievable coincidence that La'Frenais was picking up tiles near where his co-worker's father- in-law's business was located, especially since there was no evi- dence he picked up any tiles. There were also inconsistencies in that he said he assumed his co- worker had a permit and showed it to security, but they didn't actually stop on their way out. La'Frenais was aware of the proce- dure and had stopped at security on all other occasions. Werier also noted that the co- worker knew he didn't have a per- mit, so if La'Frenais wasn't in on it, he would be taking a chance that La'Frenais wouldn't stop at secu- rity — something he usually did. "It is unbelievable that (the co- worker) would take the chance of not discussing it and hope that (La'Frenais) would simply drive through," said Werier. "The only logical conclusion is that (La'Frenais) was a party to the plan and knew exactly what he was doing." Werier found La'Frenais was aware there was no permit to re- move the stove and freezer and was part of the plan to steal them. Despite La'Frenais' long service, he was well aware of the policies and the importance of honesty in Boeing's workplace — even more so because of his seniority. In addition, La'Frenais' denials of involvement increased the se- riousness of his misconduct and damaged the employment rela- tionship beyond despair. Werier determined Boeing had just cause for termination and dis- missed Unifor's grievance. For more information see • Boeing Canada and Unifor, Lo- cal 2169 (La'Frenais), Re, 2015 CarswellMan 690 (Man. Arb.). 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS < Appliances pg. 1 Man 'flustered, uncooperative, evasive' answering questions Photo: Jirat Teparaksa (Shutterstock)

• Cover