Case Study: A Christmas Greeting.

MGMT9830-Industrial and Labour Relations

Case Study
Date: 27th March 2024

Niagara College
Toronto Campus
Department Of Human Resources Management.
Submitting By: Harleen Kaur (4556263)
Submitted to: Tabassum Fatima.
1. What is the role of the specific industry in determining the seriousness of the offense? Is
there a strict policy against theft?

The business in which theft happens might have a significant impact on how serious the violation
is. The possible impact on inventory, sales, and consumer trust makes the violation more
significant in the context of a big national supermarket chain. Grocery businesses frequently
have low profit margins and are vulnerable to theft from the inside as well as the outside, which
can worsen financial losses.

To prevent theft and safeguard assets, the retail sector, particularly food stores, frequently has
strong anti-theft policies. These rules are usually zero-tolerance, which means that any theft can
lead to dismissal despite the value of the things taken. This is because modest thefts might result
in large losses.

Regarding Sally Smith, the fact that she left the store without paying for the things and had
"PAID" stickers in her handbag, both of which she was unable to explain, probably made others
view the violation as more severe. She would thus be fired for stealing corporate property, which
would be justified under the store's anti-theft policy, which is probably severe given industry
norms.

2. Is the employee aware of this policy? Have all employees been treated in a fair and even-
handed way?

Employees must be informed of the company's theft policy in the event of theft. Employers are
often obligated to inform both prospective hires and current staff members about these rules.
This entails having open lines of communication on the definition of theft, the penalties for
breaking the rules, and the protocols for reporting and looking into such thefts.

It is imperative that the same standards be applied to all employees and that the guidelines be
regularly implemented to ensure equitable and impartial treatment. Sally Smith's termination for
stealing would be viewed as appropriate if she was aware of the policy and if it were followed
consistently throughout the company. On the other hand, if Smith was not given accurate
information about the policy, or if the policy was applied inconsistently, there could be a reason
to challenge the justice of her termination. (Kuizon, 2023)

3. Can the company insist on inspecting her purse? Is she aware that she was under
surveillance?

In terms of Sally Smith's purse examination, employers are often not given complete authority by
Canadian law to examine an employee's personal property, including a purse. However, it can be
legal if the employment contract or corporate policy has an express or implicit clause authorizing
such searches. The employer may have the right to search employees as part of its rights to
secure company property and implement acceptable work regulations, but such searches must be
carried out lawfully and not unfairly or in a discriminatory way.

Regarding surveillance awareness, workers have a legitimate expectation of privacy, even

though employers can keep an eye on them to maintain a secure and effective workforce.
Employers must inform staff members of monitoring practices and their justifications. Sally
Smith's right to privacy may be in jeopardy if she was unaware that she was being watched. But
the details of whether she knew would rely on the company's rules and how well they were
explained to her and the other employees.

The business might insist on looking through Sally Smith's handbag if she knew about the policy
and gave her permission.

4. Can the company interview her without union representation?

The collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer usually specifies the
right to have union representation for an inquiry. Employers are required to respect an
employee's right to have a union representative during investigative interviews if such a right is
included in the collective agreement or employment regulations.

However, there are situations where an employer can have an interview without a union
representative. In some cases, the employer may be entitled to proceed with disciplinary
measures, even interviews, without union representation if the employee requests that one not be
present, or if one is not available within a fair notice time.

In Sally Smith's case, the conditions of her union's collective bargaining agreement and any
applicable workplace policies she has accepted as a condition of her employment will determine
whether the employer is permitted to interview her without union representation.

5. Was her defense credible? What about the “PAID” stickers?

Sally Smith's claim that she forgot to pay for the things might be evaluated for trustworthiness
based on elements, such as her prior actions, the truthfulness of her explanation, and any
supporting documentation. Credibility in workplace investigations is frequently assessed based
on how persuasive, coherent, and clear the evidence is, as well as how likely it is that the events
happened as reported.

Her claim of forgetfulness is questioned by the discovery of "PAID" stickers in her handbag,
which are not customarily used in her capacity and for which she cannot explain.

Her case of mere forgetfulness would be compromised if the stickers suggested planning or
intent to steal.

In conclusion, even if forgetfulness may be an excuse, the fact that she would have the "PAID"
stickers in her handbag without a worthy cause could seriously damage her reputation and raise
the possibility that she planned to steal.

6. What weight would you give to her 22 years and clean record? Would a lesser penalty be
more appropriate?

When it comes to disciplinary proceedings, considering an employee's long service history and
spotless record is crucial. Progressive disciplinary guidelines imply that, particularly in cases of
first offenses, workers with a lengthy record of good service may be better off with a lighter
punishment than termination. Based on the notion that workers who have made significant
contributions over a long period could be entitled to an opportunity to make amends before
suffering the worst consequences of termination.

Sally Smith's 22 years of employment and spotless record may work as a mitigating factor in her
favor and prevent her from being fired right away. Alternatively, other disciplinary measures like
a warning—verbal or written—suspension, or demotion—may be regarded as preliminary
measures. These actions can be used as remedial measures, giving the worker a chance to behave
better and perform better.

The complexity of the situation arises from the nature of the offense and the "PAID" stickers,
which imply premeditation. Theft is sometimes seen as a major violation of trust, especially
when it involves the possibility of deception.

In the end, the determination of the suitable penalty would be based on the organization's
policies, the case's particulars, and potentially the resolution of any legal actions or labor.
(World, 2021)

References
Kuizon, K. (2023, October 26). 'Take Care of Maya' trial: Dr. Sally Smith testifies for the
defense in $220M case. Retrieved from www.fox13news.com:
https://www.fox13news.com/news/take-care-of-maya-trial-dr-sally-smith-to-testify-for-
the-defense-in-220m-case

World, R. U. (2021, August 14). Incarceration of Dr. Sally Smith and Danielle McCoy.
Retrieved from www.change.org.com: https://www.change.org/p/inspector-general-
incarceration-of-dr-sally-smith-and-danielle-mccoy#decision-makers-heading