Town Plaza Hotel (Discharge - Theft - Minimal Value) BACKGROUND The grievor, Mrs. Elizabeth Meyers, was discharged from her employment as a cook at the hotel on July 10th for alleged theft. She filed a grievance claiming unjust dismissal which proceeded to arbitration. Mrs. Meyers was 54 years of age, had six years of service with the employer and also possessed a good work record. The essential facts were not in dispute. On Friday, July 4, 20XX, the grievor was working as a Cook III. At the close of her shift, at approximately 4 p.m., she was observed by the food services supervisor, Ms. Karen Schafer, near the back of the kitchen searching through boxes on a garbage wagon. The grievor approached Ms. Schafer and told her she needed empty boxes to help a friend who was moving that weekend. Shortly, after this, Ms. Schafer noticed the grievor pacing in front of the garbage wagon. The grievor then took a sweater she was carrying under her arm and reached behind a doorway into anadjacent store-room. She appeared to drop her sweater and then extracted a box from the store-room. Ms. Schafer approached the grievor and removed the sweater from the box. Upon doing so she found in the box some wrapped pairs of muffins and one individually wrapped muffin, two pieces of cheese souffl and a piece of Bavarian meat loaf. All of the items were wrapped in a saran wrap type material. Ms. Schafer asked the grievor if she had paid for the food products. Mrs. Meyers responded by naming specific employees from whom she said she purchased the muffins and souffl. She told Ms. Schafer she had not paid for the Bavarian meat loaf because it was for her dog and was to be thrown out in any event. Ms. Schafer said (referring to the meat loaf) "Elizabeth, this is stealing!" The grievor replied," I know". Ms. Schafer said she would have to investigate the matter and that she would get back to the grievor. Ms. Schafer confiscated the box and food items and the grievor left the hotel premises. Ms. Schafer then contacted the employees from whom the grievor said she purchased the items. She determined that the grievor had not purchased the muffins or souffl as alleged by Mrs. Meyers. Ms. Schafer then contacted the director of dietary services, Mrs. Lydia Greco. Mrs. Greco has direct responsibility for all food production services at the hotel including the supervision and discipline of staff. Mrs. Greco contacted the grievor by telephone at home and told her that the matter was under investigation and the grievor was not to report to work until further notice. Mrs. Greco testified that during her telephone conversation with the grievor, the grievor reiterated that she had paid for the muffins and the souffl, but not the meat loaf because it was going to be thrown out. She again asserted that she was taking the meat loaf home to her dog. Mrs. Greco said that the grievor was very agitated and upset on the PART D: CASE STUDY (cont'd) phone. The grievor pleaded with Mrs. Greco to forgive her and said she was sorry. She asked Mrs. Greco not to take the matter further with the administration. Mrs. Greco told Mrs. Meyers that she would get back to her on the following Monday or Tuesday after she had completed her investigation and after she had discussed the matter with the hotel administration. In her testimony, the grievor quite adamantly denied that she told Mrs. Greco on the telephone that she had paid for the food items. She did, however, acknowledge that she was crying and upset and that she had pleaded for another chance. The grievor said she was under the impression she was probably going to be fired as a result of her conduct. On Monday, July 7, Mrs. Meyers endeavoured to see the assistant executive director, employee relations, Mr. John Kasik. Mr. Kasik was away for that day. She was waiting for him in his office when he arrived for work on July 8th. Mr. Kasik had not yet been briefed by Mrs. Greco concerning the events of the priorweek. He agreed to speak with the grievor. He testified that Mrs. Meyers was very upset and that her comments were disjointed and close to incoherent. He testified she told him she was in a lot of trouble. She said "It was the diet that has done this to me - it has driven me crazy". She produced a photocopy of a diet from a tabloid newspaper and explained to Mr. Kasik that she was on a salt free diet and, as a result, she had a craving for salt. He testified she said she took the food items because they contained an excess amount of salt. Mr. Kasik quickly determined that the matter should be more properly handled by the grievor's department head and referred her to Mrs. Greco. The grievor's recollection of her conversation with Mr. Kasik differed materially. She said she showed him the newspaper diet only to establish that her diet was salt-free. She said her diet only allowed her to eat vegetables and salad. She testified that she showed Mr. Kasik the diet in order to establish that she was not taking the food for herself but rather for her dog. The grievor also noted that she did not recall telling Mr. Kasik that she had a craving for salt. When the grievor left Mr. Kasik's office, she went to see Mrs. Greco. Mrs. Greco testified that the grievor showed her a copy of a diet extracted from a newspaper. The grievor told her she was on a low salt diet and, accordingly, it left her with a craving for salt. Mrs. Greco said the grievor told her the reason she took the muffins and meat loaf was because of the salt content. She said the grievor confirmed that the meat loaf was going to be thrown out anyway. Mrs. Greco disagreed and told the grievor that department would find a use for it. The hotel made its decision to dismiss the grievor on July 10th after reviewing the facts of the case. On that date, Mr. Kasik and Mrs. Greco met with the grievor, her husband and union representatives. Mr. Kasik reviewed the facts leading up to the meeting including the various versions of the events given by the grievor. According to Mr. Kasik, during the meeting the grievor told him that she had taken all the food products for her dog. She maintained that the food had no value because it was going to be thrown out anyway. She acknowledged she had not paid for the souffl, meat loaf or for any of the muffins. As a result of the termination by the employer and the resulting grievance filed by the union, Mr. Kasik and union officials agreed to an expedited arbitration process. The hearing was scheduled before an arbitration board within 10 business days at a nearby community centre. In her testimony before the arbitration board, Mrs. Meyers said her recollection of the meeting on July 10th was unclear. She testified that she had taken Valium prior to the meeting to calm her nerves, and as a result, did not recall much of the discussion. Company Argument Mr. Kasik outlined the reasons for the termination. Those reasons included the fact that the grievor had committed, what the hotel considered, a serious offence (i.e. alleged theft); that the grievor had acted in what appeared to be a premeditated manner; that the grievor held a position of trust in that she had