Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 Employee courts disaster with dishonest conduct Long-time employee denied taking money from safe and then returning it, despite video evidence to the contrary BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ARBITRATOR has upheld the dis- missal of an Ontario court worker who was caught on video taking money from a safe and later returning it. Maria Rossi, 63, was a support assistant in court services at the Toronto West Court. Rossi worked for the City of Toronto in its court services for 10 years since it had been transferred from the province. Prior to the transfer, she had been a provincial court ser- vices employee for six years. Rossi's job involved being a lead in the en- forcement and intake unit at the court, where she worked on administrative functions and handling default fines. She was also a back- up for the unit's counter services, which in- volved receiving payment of fines and tickets from the public at wickets, as well as paying out funds to witnesses living outside the city who were summoned by the prosecution in a court proceeding. Since she was a back-up to the counter services, Rossi was fully trained on cash-handling procedures and she had a clean disciplinary record. Every day when the wickets and informa- tion desk opened, the counter services lead obtained daily float bags from a safe and distributed them to the clerks working the wickets. At the end of the day, the lead would balance the floats and prepare the daily de- posit. Only certain staff could access the safe through user numbers and a PIN, and there was a camera above the safe. Each float bag contained $200 for the regular wickets. e total witness fee fund was always to be $2,900 including cash in the safe, the float, and any fees paid out each day. e fund was supposed to be reconciled by the counter services lead on a daily basis. On Nov. 5, 2012, Rossi returned to work after taking a few months off for surgery. She eased back into work by assisting in enforce- ment unit duties and backing up the counter service. e following day, her supervisor re- set her PIN so she could access the safe, as it had been deactivated during Rossi's absence. At the end of the day on Nov. 6, the witness fee fund was reconciled at $2,900 as expect- ed. e next day, the acting supervisor did his weekly reconciliation and found the fund was $50 short. is was double-checked and confirmed, though nothing was done about it at the time. No reconciliation of the fund was done over the next couple days, as the acting su- pervisor was ill and the counter lead was busy. However, the counter lead told the enforcement lead about the witness fund shortage and the enforcement lead decided to try to figure out why the shortage had oc- curred. Despite checking the payout records and the safe, she couldn't find out what hap- pened. e next day — Nov. 9 — the counter lead checked the fund and found it back at $2,900. e enforcement lead and acting supervisor contacted security and asked to view footage from the camera above the safe. A corporate security officer showed them footage from Nov. 7 that showed Rossi look- ing up at the camera as she accessed the safe in the morning. ey thought this was sus- picious since people normally didn't glance at the camera there. In the footage, Rossi removed a float bag from the safe for a part- time clerk who was about to start her shift. A few minutes later, Rossi returned and ex- changed the float bag for another and gave it to the clerk, who was standing at the door to the room. Apparently, the clerk was going to work at a different wicket and had to ex- change the float bag. After the clerk left the room, Rossi in the video opened the safe, looked up at the cam- era, and did something in the safe. e clerk reappeared in the doorway and Rossi closed the safe quickly. A short time later, Rossi was seen in the video returning a float bag to the safe for a clerk who had to leave early. Rossi again glanced at the camera and shut the door. Her right hand was curled around something as she closed the safe, instead of flat against the heavy door. e enforcement lead was sure it was a roll of toonies based on the colour and size of the coins and the wrapper. ey looked at footage from the morning of Nov. 9 — when the witness fee fund was back at $2,900 — before the clerks arrived at work, and saw Rossi come into the room with money in her hand, open the safe, look at the camera, and go into the safe. When she left, she had paperwork and keys for the float bags but no money. e city investigated and Rossi was inter- viewed. She denied doing anything wrong said if she had money in her hand on either Nov. 7 or 9, she must have been making change for one of the counter clerks. When the enforcement lead told her they had seen video footage that led them to believe Rossi had taken and returned money from the fund, Rossi replied "yeah?" At that point, ac- cording to the lead, Rossi became rude, eva- sive and abrupt in her answers. She also de- nied having anything in her hand when she closed the safe on Nov. 7 or when she opened it on Nov. 9. After interviews with other employees, the investigation determined Rossi took $50 for her personal use and returned it two days later. is was considered a serious breach of trust — particularly since it was the public's money — and on Dec. 12 Rossi's employ- ment was terminated. Rossi's union, the Canadian Union of Pub- lic Employees (CUPE), grieved her dismiss- al, citing her clean record, length of service and the circumstantial evidence against her. Arbitrator Janice Johnston found the vid- eo evidence left "no doubt" that Rossi had something in her hand when she closed the safe on Nov. 7 that appeared to be a roll of coins. Because Rossi denied she had any- thing in her hand that day or two days later, it raised serious doubts about her credibility. Johnston also found the enforcement lead would be able to recognize a roll of toonies on the video and neither she nor the security officer had a reason to make it up. Either way, it was clear Rossi was lying about it, which made it likely she was covering up taking and then replacing $50 from the safe. Arbitrator Johnston determined that Ros- si's theft of the money and then denying it in the face of video evidence to the contrary was a serious breach of trust that warranted dismissal from her position, despite her re- cord, age, and length of service. For more information see: • Toronto (City) and CUPE, Local 79 (Rossi), Re, 2016 CarswellOnt 14546 (Ont. Arb.). Canadian Employment Law Today | 3 Cases and Trends After learning of the video footage of her, the employee became rude, evasive and abrupt in her answers. She denied having anything in her hand, despite video evidence to the contrary.

• Cover