All new acct registrations in the queue as of 10/18 at 10:00p ET have been activated. Want to share your favorite Buzzboard posts with your social media page readers? Now, there's an easy way to do it! Visit this page for instructions: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=47643

(Note: hover your mouse pointer near the upper right corner of this box and click the "x" to close it.)

Another Case

A place to talk about any topic on your mind (non-broadcasting related). General conversation.
User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:55 pm

This wasn't one of my cases. It was told to me by one of my colleagues who was involved.

Grievor - Female

Age - Unknown

Seniority - Unknown

Rate of pay - Unknown

Job Class - Kitchen Aid.

Nature of Grievance - Improper Discharge.

Remedy Sought - Reinstatement with full redress.

The Employer runs a chain of Nursing Homes around Ontario. The one in this case was in a small town near Ottawa.

One of the duties of a kitchen aid is to clear the tables after meals. The plates must be scraped into the garbage, before going to be washed.

The employee was cleaning up after the evening meal when she noticed an uneaten cube of cheese on one plate. She popped it into her mouth and then scraped off the rest of the plate. A coworker saw her eat the cheese and reported her to the Administrator.

The next day. The employee was called into the Administrators office. The employee admitted to eating the piece of cheese. The Administrator said the employee had committed theft and fired her for theft.


The Union filed a grievance. Does it succeed?



NS8401
Posts: 8742
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by NS8401 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:24 pm

Turkeytop wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:55 pm
This wasn't one of my cases. It was told to me by one of my colleagues who was involved.

Grievor - Female

Age - Unknown

Seniority - Unknown

Rate of pay - Unknown

Job Class - Kitchen Aid.

Nature of Grievance - Improper Discharge.

Remedy Sought - Reinstatement with full redress.

The Employer runs a chain of Nursing Homes around Ontario. The one in this case was in a small town near Ottawa.

One of the duties of a kitchen aid is to clear the tables after meals. The plates must be scraped into the garbage, before going to be washed.

The employee was cleaning up after the evening meal when she noticed an uneaten cube of cheese on one plate. She popped it into her mouth and then scraped off the rest of the plate. A coworker saw her eat the cheese and reported her to the Administrator.

The next day. The employee was called into the Administrators office. The employee admitted to eating the piece of cheese. The Administrator said the employee had committed theft and fired her for theft.


The Union filed a grievance. Does it succeed?
Yes on the basis that theft involves something somebody wants... clearly nobody wanted this although I’d say this is kinda gross too...



bmw
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Another Case

Post by bmw » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:43 pm

Image



bmw
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Another Case

Post by bmw » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:48 pm

In all seriousness though, courts have deemed trash to be abandoned property. Sounds like the "stolen" item was earmarked, per company policy, as "trash." Pettiness and grossness aside, I think the employee wins this one.



User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:09 pm

Generally speaking,an employee who gets fired for theft, stays fired. Theft is regarded as one of the gravest of workplace offenses.

No matter how great or how small the theft, employers regard it as a violation of their trust. The say "We can never again trust this person." They will ask an Arbitrator "Please don't burden us by putting back on our payroll, an employee we can't trust." Just about always, an Arbitrator will grant such a request.



NS8401
Posts: 8742
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by NS8401 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:32 pm

Turkeytop wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:09 pm
Generally speaking,an employee who gets fired for theft, stays fired. Theft is regarded as one of the gravest of workplace offenses.

No matter how great or how small the theft, employers regard it as a violation of their trust. The say "We can never again trust this person." They will ask an Arbitrator "Please don't burden us by putting back on our payroll, an employee we can't trust." Just about always, an Arbitrator will grant such a request.
So what’s the answer?



User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:38 pm

My colleague wanted to challenge the unfairness of this discharge before an Arbitrator, knowing she would probably lose.

She lost.



NS8401
Posts: 8742
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by NS8401 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:49 pm

Turkeytop wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:38 pm
My colleague wanted to challenge the unfairness of this discharge before an Arbitrator, knowing she would probably lose.

She lost.
Ouch... I suppose she felt she had to try though...



User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:47 am

I only once succeeded in getting a thief his job back. Before it ever got to arbitration, I talked the Company into giving him another chance.



In The Bleachers
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:15 am
Location: Nankin Township

Re: Another Case

Post by In The Bleachers » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:09 am

That's kind of a weird one there. The cheese was going in the garbage anyway. I'm a little surprised that the arb didn't see it that way.
I'm assuming one thing. This was an excuse to get rid of her for another issue. Way too petty for me to think otherwise.


Nothing will change until ALL incumbents are voted out of office.

In The Bleachers
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:15 am
Location: Nankin Township

Re: Another Case

Post by In The Bleachers » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:13 am

bmw wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:43 pm
Image
I've had this happen at work where I put an empty fruit pie tin in the garbage, and then I could tell someone had took the tin out of the garbage, swiped across the bottom of it with their finger, and put it back in the garbage.


Nothing will change until ALL incumbents are voted out of office.

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:18 pm

Grievor - Male, age 24

Seniority - Five years.

Job Class - Water Blaster

Rate of pay - $19/hr.

Nature of Grievance - Improper Discharge

Remedy Sought - Reinstatement with full redress.

The employer is a contractor in the industrial cleaning and industrial waste business. The company had contacted with a Japanese Auto maker in Ontario to do some heavy duty cleaning in their plant, using high pressure washers, steam generators and a Vac truck.

While they were in the plant, a member of the crew, spotted in a scrap bin a scrap of rubber trim he thought might be useful.

He removed it from the bin and tossed it into the cab of the washer truck.

That part of the plant is kept under video surveillance and his actions were observed by the plant security staff.
When the plant management learned of it, they called the contractor and asked to have the employee removed from their plant. A client can not compel a contractor to fire an employee but it can demand the removal of a contractor's employee from its property.

The contractor removed the employee from the job site, then fired him for theft.

The Union filed a grievance. Does the grievance succeed?



NS8401
Posts: 8742
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by NS8401 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:49 pm

Based on the last one and not on any logical or moral grounds I'm gonna say he had a snowballs chance in hell...



User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:20 am

The Company's position was that he had damaged their reputation with an important client and if he couldn't be trusted there, he couldn't be trusted anywhere.

In any arbitration case involving a discharge, the burden of proof is on the employer. The employer must prove that the employee is guilty of what it is alleging.

In this case, the employer would need to subpoena a copy of the client's security video. They would also need to subpoena the client's security officer to give testimony about the video and to be cross examined by the Union.

The employer didn't want to antagonize the client by exposing the client to legal proceedings, but without that vital evidence the employer would lose and be forced to reinstate the employee.

They really didn't want the guy back, so they made an offer of six weeks severance pay for him to go away.

I told the grievor if he held out, the Company might agree to put him back to work. Turns out he wasn't eager to go back. He had already found a job with one of the employer's competitors.

He took the money and walked.



NS8401
Posts: 8742
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by NS8401 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:26 am

Turkeytop wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:20 am
The Company's position was that he had damaged their reputation with an important client and if he couldn't be trusted there, he couldn't be trusted anywhere.

In any arbitration case involving a discharge, the burden of proof is on the employer. The employer must prove that the employee is guilty of what it is alleging.

In this case, the employer would need to subpoena a copy of the client's security video. They would also need to subpoena the client's security officer to give testimony about the video and to be cross examined by the Union.

The employer didn't want to antagonize the client by exposing the client to legal proceedings, but without that vital evidence the employer would lose and be forced to reinstate the employee.

They really didn't want the guy back, so they made an offer of six weeks severance pay for him to go away.

I told the grievor if he held out, the Company might agree to put him back to work. Turns out he wasn't eager to go back. He had already found a job with one of the employer's competitors.

He took the money and walked.
Interesting... so he actually made out better overall that way than in a long drawn out process...



User avatar
Ed Joseph
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Ed Joseph » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:17 pm

In The Bleachers wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:09 am
That's kind of a weird one there. The cheese was going in the garbage anyway. I'm a little surprised that the arb didn't see it that way.
I'm assuming one thing. This was an excuse to get rid of her for another issue. Way too petty for me to think otherwise.
I agree. Maybe she was due for a raise?


I confirm all my information through a high, white whore's souse!

In The Bleachers
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:15 am
Location: Nankin Township

Re: Another Case

Post by In The Bleachers » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:20 am

Turkeytop wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:18 pm
… The employer is a contractor in the industrial cleaning and industrial waste business. The company had contacted with a Japanese Auto maker in Ontario to do some heavy duty cleaning in their plant, using high pressure washers, steam generators and a Vac truck.

While they were in the plant, a member of the crew, spotted in a scrap bin a scrap of rubber trim he thought might be useful.

He removed it from the bin and tossed it into the cab of the washer truck ...
My question is just how was the member of the crew going to find it useful.
Was this something he was taking home? Or was this something that they were going to use on the job?
I know from bringing in vac-all crews to places I've worked at, that they use a menagerie of things to help them do their job better.
Grabbing cardboard out of a dumpster for the work they are doing is commonplace for a vac-all crew.

To me, this actually sounds more petty than the cheese cube.


Nothing will change until ALL incumbents are voted out of office.

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Another Case

Post by Turkeytop » Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:55 pm

If it's at all relevant, he intended it for his own use. The company complaining about its reputation being damaged is laughable. The industrial waste business is pure sleaze. They all have damaged reputations. They're all controlled by the mob

When a mob figure goes missing, whatever remains there are usually turn up at th bottom of a toxic waste lagoon.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic