Mrs.

Elisabeth Myers, a 54-year-old cook III who had worked at the Town Plaza Hotel for

the previous six years, is the subject of the Town Plaza Hotel lawsuit. She never had a poor

work history or any other complaints during her six years of employment, except for one

where the hotel's culinary manager, Ms. Karen Schaefer, accused her of stealing food items.

When asked by the supervisor why she was pacing around looking for boxes near the garbage

wagoon on July 4th evening, the grievor claimed she needed them for a friend, but after some

time, Ms. Karen realized the grievor was using the empty box to steal food, so she hid it with

the help of her sweater. The box contained a piece of Bavarian meatloaf, a cheese souffle,

three wrapped pairs of muffins, one individual muffin, three wrapped muffins, and three

wrapped muffins. Mrs. Myers accepted payment for all save the meatloaf, which she gave to

her dog because it was likely to be thrown out. The director of food production services, Mrs.
Greco, contacted Mrs. Myers over the phone about the problem. Mrs. Myers repeated her

response to Mrs. Greco, became irritated, demanded a thorough investigation into the

situation, and begged for forgiveness from the director. When she met with Mr. John Kasik,

she explained that she was on a salt-free diet and that she had been desiring salty foods,

therefore she had been taking such food items. As she used Valium to help her relax and was

depressed and afraid of losing her job at the time, Mrs. Elisabeth afterward fully denied

having chats with Mrs. Greco and Mr. Kasik in her depositions. After hearing all the

allegations from Mrs. Greco, Mr. Kasik, and Mrs. Elisabeth, the Town Plaza Hotel's

management finally decided to terminate Mrs. Elisabeth's job as a cook III at the hotel on

July 10.

What can be learned from the case

In most cases, the most significant sort of misconduct that justifies a summary dismissal is a

crime like theft or fraud, but after examining the case, we discover that major fraud and theft

were recognized as grounds for termination by the Canadian court. According to the Ontario

Lottery and Gaming Corporation, the judge ruled that the employer "was unjustified in firing

the employee accused of theft after having a clean record of six years of employment."

Presentation of statement to Arbitrator

Mrs. Elisabeth Myers, who has been working as a cook III at the Town Plaza Hotel, is our

client in this arbitration. Mr. Arbitrator was charged with stealing hotel food for her own use.

We want to address your concerns regarding the fact that she stated during her testimony on

July 7th that she stole the meatloaf because it would be discarded at the end of the day. Mr.

Arbitrator, please check Mrs. Elisabeth's diet chart, which she had provided to Mr. Kasik in

her testimony on July 8 since she claimed to be on a salt-free diet because of which she was

desiring salted food. Mrs. Elisabeth was not in a proper mental condition at the time.
 According to the McKinley v. case, an employee cannot be fired from their employment for

just one instance of dishonesty, our client Mrs. Myers is not eligible to lose her job, and to

support her argument, Mr. Arbitrator, we can look to the law. Additionally, in the 2017

Alberta arbitration between Sobeys Capital Inc. and the UFCW, termination is warranted

when the behavior is serious or significant, the employee continues to commit crimes, the

employee's length of service, and the record of service. The condition of our client, Mrs.

Elisabeth, can be justified after taking all these circumstances into account, Mr. Arbitrator.

First, she didn't choose the food items out of malice or any other kind of harm; rather, she

chose them because they would eventually be tossed in the trash and have no further use.

Second, she has a solid track record of service in her position going back six years with no

complaints; therefore, she is not deserving of being fired.

Union point of view

The Grievor doesn't refute that she took any food from the inn on July 4, as suggested by the

association perspective on this matter. In any case, the Grievor said that the food items had no

value because they were meant to be thrown away. Because Mrs. Elisabeth was not given a

warning that she would face consequences if certain conduct were repeated in the future, the

employee should not have been fired. A copy of the evaluation was not given to the

employee, as required by article 35, either, according to management. 01 Grievor may have

been mistaken, but she wasn't dishonest, and in any case, the "dismissal" is an unfair

punishment for someone like the Grievor, who has worked for the hotel for about 6 years

with a good service record. The fact that the management did not offer any proof that Mrs.

Meyers is to blame is another factor. She admitted having paid for lunch because she was

afraid when Ms. Schaefer approached her at the time. The complainant begged for

forgiveness and expressed regret during a telephone call with Mrs. Gerco, indicating that she

would not do this again. Additionally, Mrs. Gerco stated that she was lying when she said
that Grievor misunderstood her statements because of how angry she was and how her

remarks were fragmented and nearly incomprehensible. Grevor also stated during her

testimony that she did not steal the food items, but rather placed them in the box because she

believed they would be thrown out. Ms. Schaefor believed Grevor dropped her sweater on

purpose to conceal food items that she had stolen. The beef loaf had previously been

reheated, according to the employee's claim, and was therefore unsafe to use again. The

muffins she took out of the warmer looked crushed and broken. She threw the worthless food

items into a box that is kept in the storage room. She added that she had been scared at the

time of their conversation with Ms. Schaefer. She was also familiar with hotel rules. This

statement makes it abundantly evident that E. Myeres is innocent and that she felt trapped in

her predicament. Additionally, management lacked any supporting documentation.

Last but not least, the collective bargaining agreement's requirements for the final termination

choice were not fulfilled, the process was not followed, and the decision to fire the employee

was made too hastily. The same thing occurred in the instance of Dibendu Das, who asserts

that on October 15, 2015, Four Points Sheraton Meadowvale fired him without cause. The

grievor was not informed of the policy that he could not take food from the hotel premises,

according to the union; additionally, he had been employed for 18 years at the time of

termination and had not received any disciplinary warnings or suspensions within the

previous two years. Discharge is an unjust punishment for someone who has served for so

many years, such as the grievor (in both cases). Furthermore, it was clear throughout all legal

proceedings that this is a case of misbehavior rather than a criminal case. In the case "UNITE

HERE LOCAL 40 v/s HOST INTERNATIONAL OF CANADA LTD," it is stated

unequivocally that there is no clear, cogent, and compelling evidence of theft against the

defendant. Customers may change their minds occasionally or cancel orders for a variety of

reasons, leading to an increase in voids. The grievor is new to the position, therefore it's
possible that he made mistakes while taking orders. Similar circumstances befell Mrs.

Meyers, whose actions were likewise misinterpreted by management.

Final decision

The employee named Mrs. E Meyers' termination was in violation of the collective

bargaining agreement, and Donna Kvichak filed a grievance requesting the removal and

restoration of the employee's prior employment status, benefits, and compensation. The

arbitrator will rule on this request.