Canadian Labour Reporter

substitute belt-loader was avail- able for rental from an airline that used the facility. If the substitute belt-loader wasn't available, the freight was to be returned to the aircraft — though there was no evidence this had ever happened. In November 2014, the unit manager reminded employees they worked in a "fishbowl" and their actions could be seen by any- one nearby with a cellphone. He also told them they must never unload freight without using a belt-loader. In addition, the em- ployee handbook stated "custom- er shipments must not be thrown or mishandled in any way." The worker received a one-day suspension in December 2014 for failing to put away the belt-loader when it wasn't in use. Misconduct caught on video On March 15, 2015, a news pro- gram aired a video from the Prince George facility recorded on a cellphone. The video depict- ed a Purolator employee tossing packages to a worker who then tossed them into a van. The hy- draulic belt-loader could be seen off to one side and two other em- ployees were present. The manager of Purolator's air division in Ontario saw the broad- cast and called the worker's man- ager regarding the violation of company protocol. Three of the four employees in the video were interviewed separately via conference call with management. In his interview, the worker acknowledged he shouldn't have been unloading without a belt- loader and admitted he would be "PO'd" if someone handled his goods that way. On March 18, all three employ- ees were dismissed, including the worker. The worker's letter of ter- mination stated he was identified in a video from a television broad- cast mishandling freight and he was unable to provide an explana- tion for his actions. His "blatant disregard for the safekeeping of customer freight" caught on video diminished Pu- rolator's brand and reputation and warranted immediate dismissal, the letter concluded. A few weeks later, two of the employees were reinstated after reaching settlement agreements. So the union, Teamsters, Local 31, filed a grievance on behalf of the worker, pointing to a March 2014 incident where an employee who had intentionally thrown packages from a table towards mail slots and into a cage on the floor was only suspended for five days rather than fired. It also ar- gued that Purolator was lenient with regards to the use of a belt- loader in certain circumstances when it had mechanical problems, so it wasn't treated as a "blanket rule." Arbitrator Joan McEwan found that the way Purolator treated past instances of employees throwing freight, as well as the company's actions in this case, demonstrated that it viewed such misconduct as "relatively minor." McEwan noted that the com- pany's investigation into the mat- ter consisted of a single interview of each employee identified and it was via conference call, not even in-person. In addition, it was the manager of the air division in Ontario who ini- tiated the process after viewing the video on the news program, not the unit managers in Prince George. There was nothing indicating the unit managers who worked directly with the worker had any meaningful input into the decision to terminate, said McEwan. Purolator's history addressing similar instances of misconduct was also telling. There were other examples of employees failing to use the belt-loader, but this result- ed in suspension, not dismissal. The worker himself had a one- day suspension on his record, but jumping to his dismissal after that would require serious miscon- duct, especially since the previous discipline wasn't related to throw- ing packages, said McEwan . McEwan found the three em- ployees in this instance were sin- gled out because they were record- ed on a video that was broadcast. Even then, the other two were rein- stated with a settlement negotiated between Purolator and Teamsters. In addition, the worker ac- knowledged his misconduct, even if it wasn't a full-blown apology. Given the relatively minor na- ture of the misconduct and the lack of any similar misconduct on the worker's record, the employ- ment relationship wasn't irrepara- bly damaged, said McEwan. Purolator was ordered to re- instate the worker with a three- day suspension on his record — "consistent with the principles of progressive discipline" — and compensation for lost wages and benefits. McEwan denied a claim by Teamsters for additional dam- ages for the manner of dismissal, finding no bad faith on Purola- tor's part as it was acting out of concern for its reputation with the public. For more information see: • Purolator Inc. and TC, Local 31 (Smith), Re, 2015 CarswellNat 5537 (Can. Arb.). 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS < Purolator pg. 1 News program airs footage of employees' bad behaviour Photo: Sean Locke Photography (Shutterstock) There were other examples of employees failing to use the belt-loader, but these resulted in suspension, not dismissal.

• Cover