Istarlin Mohamed v. Teamsters Canada, Local 847, 2001 CanLII 6978

Istarlin Mohamed v. Teamsters Canada, Local 847

0379-99-U Istarlin Mohamed, Applicant v. Teamsters Canada, Local 847, Responding Party v. Goodwill Industries of Toronto, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.

APPEARANCES: H. Kopyto for the applicant; Mike McCreary, Gerry Cadden and Fred Wood for the responding party; G. Anand and S. DiFilippo for the intervenor.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 25, 2001

1. This is an application pursuant to section 96 the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging violation of section 74. The style of cause is hereby changed to reflect the correct name of the responding party union.

What this case is about

2. The applicant’s employment as a senior cash clerk was terminated by Goodwill Industries (“Goodwill” or “the employer”) because of allegations that she received money from two private detectives posing as customers, without ringing the transactions into her cash register. The applicant grieved the dismissal. The employer indicated its intention to charge the applicant with theft if she did not resign. She resigned. The applicant alleges that her union steward coerced her into resigning, gave her reckless advice, and forced her to make a decision without sufficient time to consider the matter.

Facts

3. At all material times the applicant, Istarlin Mohamed, was a member of the responding party union, Laundry Linen Drivers and Industrial Workers Union, Local 847. Ms. Mohamed was employed as a senior cash clerk at a “Goodwill” store operated by Goodwill Industries. She was hired in 1994. On June 13, 1997, Ms. Mohamed was suspended for two days for failing to ring through all items on her cash register and to complete three-part invoices for all purchases. She had been given a verbal warning on April 30, 1997, for similar infractions. On July 3, 1997, the applicant filed a grievance under her collective agreement, stating:

“Grievor feels she is being harassed and demeaned by the Management of the Burnhamthorpe store and Mr. Larry Smith (Area Manager). Grievor wishes all verbal warnings and/or discussion reports be removed from her file and further that all harrasment [sic] stop immediately.”

4. About one year later, on July 29, 1998, Goodwill received a report from two private detectives it had hired to pose as customers in its “Burnamthorpe Street” store. The detectives reported that the applicant had accepted cash from them in payment for two items and had failed to ring the transactions into the cash register.

5. On July 30, 1998, the employer’s manager, Chris Thornton, interviewed Ms. Mohamed at the store in the presence of the union’s store steward Omero Williams. The applicant was asked to explain the cash register transactions and failed to do so to the employer’s satisfaction, with the result that she was suspended and sent home. Following her suspension, the applicant prepared a letter, with the assistance of her friend Ayan Omar. The letter, dated August 3, 1998, states as follows:

To Whom it may concern:

I, Istarlin Mohamed, who works at Goodwill as a Senior Sales Clerk, would like to inform you that on Thursday July 30^th, 1998 was having lunch when Mr. Chris came to me and asked me to follow him into the office. We were in the presence of other employees. I asked him if I could finish having my lunch, but he insisted that I should follow him to the office immediately, he said it was an emergency.

We went to the office without having my lunch and he told me to look through the sales slips of Wednesday July 29^th, 1998. When I asked him if there was a problem, he said a customer called me on Wednesday night at my house. The customer told me that you sold her a pair of pants for $10.00 and two sweatshirts worth $3.00 each, and she was not issued a receipt for the merchandise, the customer spoke to me over the phone and gave me the receipt number. Since there is no receipt and no proof on the Journal, you should clean out your locker and follow me out of the store immediately. Do not come back to work without being notified.

Before leaving the store, I asked him how the customer was able to identify me as the person who helped her the day before. He said the customer had read your name tag, but on that particular Wednesday I was unable to find my name tag, making it impossible for the customer to indentified me by name. A fellow employee, Omero, who is a sales consultant at Goodwill can verify that she helped me look for my name tag, and neither of us were able to find it. I was shocked, and humiliated, in front of customers and other employees.

Mr. Chris accompanied me to the door, as if I was a thief. What I would like to know is if I had sold the merchandise, specifically the pants and the sweatshirts, to that particular customer, why did not she request a receipt immediately? Why did not she asked to speak to my district manager at the time she notice a probleme, rather than calling at another district manager at his home. Why has not she waited on the next business day? And why Mr. Chris order me to leave the store without consulting to my district manager?

Another major concern is how this incident and his actions, may affect the reputation of the company. Many customers were present when I was accompanied by the manager at the door. I am afraid that his behavior may deter customers from shopping at the store if they believe employees are being treated unfairly. I am curious as to my rights as an employee with this company, and what kind of behavior is considered tolerable. (errors in original)

6. On August 5, 1998, Ms. Mohamed attended at the Goodwill offices in downtown Toronto, at which time Mr. Thornton handed her a termination letter. Mr. Fred Wood, the steward whose responsibility it was to represent Ms. Mohamed, was also present. Ms. Mohamed recollects that there was no “meeting” as such, and that she was simply handed the termination letter. (The termination letter is dated August 4, 19