Ed Canning: Catching a thief at LCBO can get you fired
Kirk had worked at the LCBO for 20 years in customer service without any significant disciplinary record.
One December evening, two men came in with reusable shopping bags and started loading them up with several bottles of Jagermeister. A seasonal worker told Kirk something was going on, and he approached the men and asked whether they needed help. They said no and breezed past him with their overloaded shopping bags. Kirk caught up with the slower-moving second man before he got to the cash register and grabbed the shopping bag handles as well as the scruff of the man's shirt behind his neck to stop him. Video footage showed that he remained in contact with the thief for 16 seconds and at one point his hand is seen over the man's shoulder with a box cutting blade facing his neck. The second man had already put his bottles on the cash register desk and given up. He was trying to convince the other man to do the same. Eventually that happened, but the man took two bottles with him.
The LCBO has a definitive theft policy employees have to review at least once a year. It stresses that the primary consideration when a theft is occurring is the safety of employees and customers. Workers are prohibited from attempting to detain or arrest a theft suspect and from physically touching or attempting to control or apprehend the thief.
Kirk spent the next few days boasting to more than one co-worker that he had stopped a theft and held a box cutter to a man's neck to do it. A few days after that an investigation occurred and Kirk wasn't boasting anymore. During the investigation and at the arbitration where he was grieving his dismissal he said that he didn't know if the men were thieves as they had not reached the cash register and he was just trying to keep the man with the heavy bag of booze from falling. He admitted that he had violated the theft policy by touching the man and said he should have just let him fall. The box cutter just happened to be in his hand and he did not have time to put it away. As bizarre as it was for Kirk to have threatened a thief with a box cutter, he probably would have kept his job but for his lying and utter lack of remorse. To the bitter end of his testimony he claimed that he was not trying to stop a theft but simply help a man who appeared to be falling. While it was clear that the man was intoxicated and crouched over with the weight of the booze-filled shopping bag, the video of the incident contradicted his story. His own bragging in the hours and days following the event also put the lie to his testimony.
The adjudicator wrote Cases that deal with employees who have committed a safety violation stress that the most important factor when determining whether to return the employee to work is whether the individual has taken responsibility for their actions, understands that what they did was wrong, and has committed, unconditionally, to not committing the safety violation again. Absent such acknowledgment and commitment, an obvious risk exists that the employee will commit the violation again; putting other employees and customers at risk. Such an individual cannot be returned to work.
Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed Kirk's grievance and sanctioned his dismissal. Kirk's action had not only violated store policy but put himself in danger as well as other employees. The confrontation could have escalated easily. After 20 years of faithful service, a good, prompt, frank apology would have maintained his career. The arbitrator decided that if he couldn't admit or acknowledge his wrongdoing, he was in danger of doing it again.
Ed Canning practises employment and human rights law with Ross & McBride LLP, in Hamilton, representing both employers and employees. Email him at ecanning@rossmcbride.com.For more employment law information: hamiltonemploymentlaw.com.