A fun pastime for labor relations professionals is sitting around and discussing some of the silly things employees do.  Sometimes a case doesn’t have to be complex for us to talk about it; sometimes it just has to be entertaining.  In the case of the City of North St. Paul and Teamsters, Local 320, an employee did a silly thing, and got caught doing it.

In the case, the grievant, a public works mechanic, ordered a set of expensive head lamps for a vehicle, using a city purchase order.  He had them delivered to the City by its contracted equipment provider.  Upon noticing the headlamps in the shop, the grievant’s supervisor questioned why the bulbs had been purchased, as they were specialized and not meant for use on any city vehicles.  When the supervisor accepted delivery, he noticed that the bulbs had been ordered specifically for the grievant’s work truck.  Furthermore, he took a picture of the bulb package, and notified his supervisor of the purchase.  He did not ask the grievant about the bulbs.

That same day, the grievant filled out a work order stating the bulbs were installed on his city vehicle.  The grievant’s name appeared in multiple locations on the document, and included a time stamp, certifying he had installed the bulbs on his truck.  During its investigation, however, the city verified that the bulbs had not been installed on any city vehicle, and the bulbs were nowhere to be found.  After completing its investigation, the City issued the grievant a 3-day suspension.

At the hearing, the union made the argument that the grievant did not take or steal the bulbs, and that he is a long-term, competent mechanic with no discipline.  It also argued that because the grievant was never confronted by his supervisor the day the bulbs were received, he was being set up by his supervisors to be disciplined.  Finally, the union argued that there was no direct evidence that the grievant actually took the bulbs, as no one saw him leave with the bulbs or install them on his personal vehicle.

In his decision, Arbitrator Jacobs stated that while there is a heightened standard of proof in employee theft cases, the circumstantial evidence provided in the case was sufficient to meet that standard.  The documentary evidence that the grievant both ordered and claimed to have installed the bulbs onto a city vehicle, when they were not installed on a city vehicle, was overwhelming.  The union’s efforts to throw the supervisors under the bus was not supported by any evidence or logic, as the grievant’s supervisor took a picture of the bulbs and immediately sent the picture to his supervisor.

Regarding the allegations that the supervisors set the grievant up for discipline by not asking about the bulbs when they had questions, the arbitrator stated, “The ultimate question is…not whether the supervisors could have done something differently, but rather whether the evidence showed by clear and convincing evidence that the grievant took the bulbs.”  He noted that “literally all of the documentary evidence in this case points directly toward the grievant.”  He stated that if the supervisors actually wanted to get rid of the grievant, they would have terminated him, rather than giving him a three-day suspension.

In the end, the arbitrator found, in light of the facts, that the three-day suspension was reasonable, especially since in many cases of employee theft, the end result is termination.

The employer could have done a few more things to ensure the discipline it meted out was upheld.  An immediate questioning of the grievant, observation of the grievant following his receipt of the box, or a quick investigation following the incident would have been best in establishing the facts of the case.  However, there is some good language from this case to utilize when you’re dealing with employee theft.  If you, or your organization, need assistance in proving employee misconduct, or defending your decision after discipline takes place, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.