Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO'Neill 95-10-23 IN TttE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: /. FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY - alld - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION GRIEVANCE OF SANDRA O'NEILL BOARD OF ARBITRATION: JANE H. DEVLIN CHAIR PETER HETZ COLLEGE NOMINEE JON MCMANUS UNION NOMINEE Appearances for the College: Robert J. Atkinson Gail Rozell Appearances for the Union: Mary Anne Kuntz Sandra Oq'qeill Jean Crawford OPSEU FILE NO.: 94A791 (Support) DATE OF HEARING: Janumy 10, 1995 June 2 l, 1995 August 24, 1995 August 25, 1995 1 This matter concerns the discharge of the Grievor, Sandra O'Neill, tbr theft of the stun of $923.00 from the College's Parking Office. The Grievor began her e~nployment with the College in 1988 and worked Part-time until February, 1992 when she obtained a full-time position. Thereafter, she worked in a number of different Departments and in July of 1993, following a period of ~ maternity leave, she was assigned to a clerical position in the Parking Office. She remained in that position until her discharge on May 19, 1994. In the spring of 1994, the Manager of the Parking Office was Marion Dietze, who reported to Ken Magoon, the Acting Director of the Physical Resources Division. The clerical staff in the Parking Office consisted of the Grievor, who worked from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and Myrtle Brown, a part-time Clerk, who. worked from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Monday to Thursday, and from 9:00 a.m. to '1:00 p.m. on Friday. At the relevant time, the Parking Office derived revenue from a number of sources, including the sale and renewal of parking permits by clerical staff in the Office. For this purpose, the Office was open from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. In addition, the Parking Office derived revenue frmn fees which were charged at parking lots throughout the College and this revenue was brought to the Parking Office by 2 Parking Attendants where it was counted and retained with other ~nonies to be deposited at the bank. As well, the Parking Office provided change to various services including the Book Store and the Registrar's Office. The Parking Office also provided a maxitnmn of $25.00 to members of the Maintenance staff and, in exchange, received receipts for purchases made with those funds. In order to accommodate these various U'ansactions there were a number of cash floats maintained in the Parking Office. In this regard, the evidence indicates that Ms. Dietze, the Grievor and Ms. Brown each maintained a float of $100.00 for the sale and renewal of parking permits although it would app,ear that Ms. Dietze's float was only used if one of the Clerks was absent. In any event, these floats were counted each afternoon and the denominations of coil, s and bills were entered into the computer. Provided the floats balanced, the revenue from sales or, in other words, the amount in excess of $100.00 in each float, was placed in a filing cabinet in a separate room within the Office, which was referred to as the vault room, tbr deposit at the bank the following day. Prior to late March of 1994, there was one addilional float of $800.00 and the evidence indicates that Ms. Dietze, the Grievor and Ms. Brown each had a key for the float box and the filing cabinet in which both the float and bank deposit were kept. In mid-Mat'ch, however, on a day when the Grievor was called out of the office 3 unexpectedly, Ms. Dietze counted the Grievor's $100.00 lloat as wcll as the $800.00 lloat and also prepared the bank deposit. She testified that in this process, she discovered a shortage in the $800.00 float and the bank deposit totalling approxi~nately $850.00. She reported the shortage to Scott Porter, the College's internal Auditor as a result of which both the Grievor and Ms. Brown were interviewed. Although it would appear that tile College suspected that the Grievor had some involvement in the shortage, she was not the only e~nployee with a key to the float box or tile filing cabinet in which the float and bank deposit were kept. In view of the loss, Mr. Portcr rccom~ncndcd various changes in proccdurc in the Parking Office. In particular, he recommended that only one employee have access to the $800.00 float and, as a result, responsibility for this float was assigned to the Gfievor as the only full-time Clerk in the Office. As well, some time prior to March, 1994, a decision had been made to implement a $2,000.00 float and in late March, responsibility for that float was also assigned to the Grievor. At that ti~ne, both Ms. Dietze and Ms. Brown returned to the College Locksmith their keys for the box containing the $800.00 float and the filing cabinet in which the float and bank deposit were kept. The Locksmith then issued keys directly to the Grievor for both the float box and filing cabinet. The Grievor was also issued keys for four boxes which were to hold the $2,000.00 float as well as a key for a separate filing cabinet in the vault room in which the float was to be kept. Although Ms. Dietze also had a key tbr that filing 4 cabinet, she did not have a key £or the float boxes. Mr. Porter recommended that thc floal boxes and filing cabinets be locked at ali times. Ms. Dietze testified that the $2,000.00 float was to be used primarily to provide change to various services, such as the Book Store and, therefore, consisted largely of coins. Once that float was established, it would appear that the $800.00 float was used primarily to provide petty cash to maintenance personnel. Both the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats were imprest funds in that although the denominations might change and in the case of the $800.00 float, could be made up of both receipts and cash, the total of each float remained constant. Each afternoon, the Grievor was required to count her $100.00 float as well as the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats and enter the denominations of coins and bills into the computer which totalled the floats. No second count was conducted either by Ms. Brown or Ms. Dietze although when thc $2,000.00 lloat was implemented, Ms. Dictzc advised the Grievor that she would conduct spot checks of the floats fi'om ti~ne to ti~ne. In fact, the Grievor testified that she was so~newhat apprehensive about assmning responsibility for the $2,000.00 float because she realized if there was a deficiency, she could be held responsible. Apart from the floats, the Grievor was also assigned responsibility for preparing the daily bank deposit which was picked up at the Parking Office by m~other employee of the College. 5 The evidence indicates that in late March, 1994, thc Grievor's father became seriously ill and passed away in early April. As a result, the Grievor was absent on compassionate leave and later on sick leave and returned to work on Monday, April 18th. During the Grievor's various absences, no use was made either of her $100.00 float or the $2,000.00 float. Ms. Dietze, however, obtained a key for the $800.00 float box and the filing cabinet in which the float and bank deposit were kept. These keys were returned to the Locksmith when the Grievor returned to work. As to the events which precipitated the Grievor's dischm'ge, the evidence indicates that on Friday, May 6th, Ms. Dietze left work at 2:00 p.~n. to attend a wedding and as Ms. Brown did not work beyond 1:00 p.m., the Grievor was alone in the Pm-king Office from 2:00 p.~n. to 4:30 p.m. She testified that she counted her $100.00 float as well as the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats, input the figures into the cmnputer and all of the floats balanced. According to the Grievor, nothing mmsual occurred that afternoon. On Monday, May 9th, Ms. Dietze an-ived at work at approximately 8:00 a.m. and the Grievor, who was some ten minutes late, arrived at 8:40 a.m. The Grievor testified that upon her an'ival, she relnoved her $100.00 float together with the $800.00 float from the filing cabh~et in the vault room and locked them in a filing cabinet in the ~nain office. She also turned on the computers and printed various reports. When Ms. 6 Brown arrived at approximately 9:00 a.m., the Grievor began to prepare the bank deposit which consisted of revenue received in the Parking Office on Friday, May 6th. At approxi~nately 10:00 a.m., the Grievor began her coffee break and Ms. Dietze testified that shortly thereafter, she went to the top drawer of the filing cabinet adjacent to the Grievor's desk in search of certain forms. Although she could not initially locate the forms, she noticed a blue envelope with a brown elastic around it and when she removed the envelope from the drawer, she found that it contained one $50.00 bill and a number of $20.00 bills. Ms. Dietze estimated that the bills totalled a ~naximum of $300.00. She also testified that as she returned the envelope to the drawer, she noticed a wallet belonging to the Grievor which was unzipped and in view of its location, she believed that the envelope had been protruding from the wallet. She acknowledged, however, that she did not actually see the envelope inside the wallet which was covered with slips of paper. In any event, Ms. Dietze subsequently located the forms she had been looking for and returned to her office. At that point, she began to wonder whethcr the envelope might contain College funds rather than money belonging to the Grievor. As a result, she made the decision to conduct a count of the various floats when the Grievor returned from her break. The Grievor returned to the Parking Office at approximately 10:30 a.~n. mid went i~mnediately to Ms. Dietze's office. She indicated that she had taken her break with 7 staff from the Registrar's Office who had anentioned that external auditors would be at the College that week and she asked Ms. Dietze if there was anything she could do to prepare for an audit. In fact, the Grievor testified that she had been aware for some time that external auditors would be at the College during the week of May 9th and that she had activated their parking passes the previous Friday. The Grievor also testified that in view of the shortage in the Parking Office in March, she assumed that the Office would be one of the first to be audited. In any event, at that point, Ms. Dietze suggested that they count the tloats and she testified that as they proceeded to do so, the Grievor appeared to be extremely nervous. The Grievor testified, however, that she was apprehensive about the counts only because Ms. Dietze was a meticulous person. Ms. Dietze and the Grievor first counted the Grievor's $100.00 float which balanced and Ms. Dietze then proceeded to count the $800.00 float as the Grievor entered the denominations of coins and bills into the co~nputer. In the end result, there was a shortage in the float of $140.00 at which point the Grievor indicated that earlier that inoming, she had taken some larger bills frmn the $800.00 float to obtain smaller bills from the $2,000.00 float. In this regard, the Grievor testified that shortly before her break on the morning of May 9th, she took one $10.00 bill and a nmnber of $20.00 bills from the $800.00 float in order to obtain $2.00 and $5.00 bills frown the $2,000.00 float. For this propose, she went into the vault roo~n where she opened one of the boxes for the $2,000.00 float in which she kept the bills in a blue 8 envelope with a green elastic. She testified that she took thc envelope out of thc box, locked the box and the filing cabinet and as she was about to obtain smaller bills fi'om the ~ $2,000.00 float, the phone rang in the ~nain office. As Ms. Brown was busy at the counter, the Grievor testified that she put the bills frmn the $800.00 float into tile envelope, left the vault room and proceeded to answer the telephone. Tile Grievor testified that the telephone call involved a request lbr tokens fi'mn the Continuing Education Depamnent and although a staff member fi'mn that Deparanent generally attended at the Parking Office to pick up the tokens, on this occasion, the Grievor indicated that she would deliver the tokens during her upcoming break. The Grievor also testified that she obtained pe~nission to do so frmn Ms. Dietze and then proceeded on her break with the tokens, a binder containing a ledger to be signed by a staff member in the Continuing Education Depm-tment to acknowledge receipt of the tokens and a small change purse. The Grievor did not recall what she did with the blue envelope and suggested that she may have left it on the desk by the telephone. In any event, Ms. Dietze testified that after thc shortage was discovercd in the $800.00 float, the Grievor suggested that perhaps the missing funds were in the $2,000.00 float. As a result, Ms. Dietze and the Grievor proceeded into the vault rotan. There, the Grievor tmlocked the filing cabinet containing the $23)00.00 tloat, took out the 9 four boxes in which the float was kept and began to count the coins while Ms. Dietze noted the quantities on a slip of paper. The Grievor testified that although she would have preferred to immediately open the box in which the bills were kept, Ms. Dietze suggested that the count be conducted in an orderly rammer. When they crone to the last box, the Grievor indicated that the blue envelope was missing. Ms. Dietze testified that until that time, she did not know that the Grievor kept bills for the $2,000.00 float in a blue envelope. In any event, the Grievor began to look for the envelope in the vaull room while Ms. Dietze returned to the main office area and input the quantity of coins which they had counted. The result was a shortage of $783.00. At that point, the Grievor also retmned to the main office area and, again, began to search for the envelope. Ms. Dietze and the Grievor then completed the counts of the other two $100.00 floats and both balanced. Once the counts had been completed, Ms. Dietze went into her office and telephoned Mr. Magoon to advise hi~n of the shortages in the two floats. During that conversation, it was agreed that Ms. Dietze would contact Mr. Porter. Ms. Dietze also advised Mr. Magoon of the blue.envelope which she had observed in the upper drawer of the filing cabinet during the Grievor's break. Mr. Magoon suggested, however, that Ms. * Dietze not mention the envelope to anyone at that point as he was concerned about an accusation being made against the Grievor before the College was in possession of ali the facls. 10 After speaking with Mi'. Magoon, Ms. Dielze contacted Mr. Porter, who proceeded to the Parking Office. tte then returned to his office to obtain some audit sheets and in the meantime, Ms. Dietze approached the Grievor and Ms. Brown and advised them that Mr. Porter would be conducting an audit of the floats. The Grievor indicated that she had "screwed up" as she had been careless with the monies in the floats and that she wanted to go home. Ms. Dietze suggested, however, that it would be preferable if the Grievor remained at work while the audit was conducted and she agreed to do so. Although Ms. Dietze testified that the Grievor then asked if she could take a short bre~ to have a cigarette, the Grievor testified that, in thct, she took a break at Ms. Dietze's suggestion. In any event, the Grievor left the Parking Office with her wallet and Ms. Dietze acknowledged that she did not see the Grievor remove the blue envelope that she had observed in the filing cabinet earlier that morning. When Mr. Porter retm-ned to the Parking Office, he counted the various floats and confirmed that there was a shortage of $140.00 in the $800.00 float and a further shortage of $783.00 in the $2,000.00 float. The $100.00 floats all balanced. The counts were completed at approximately 2:00 p.m. at which point the Grievor advised Mr. Porter that the blue envelope in which she kept the bills lbr the $2,000.00 was ~nissing. As a result, he proceeded to look for the envelope and although lie searched in all of the filing cabinets, including the top drawer of the cabinet in which Ms. Dietze had II seen a blue envelope earlier, he did not find the envelope. In fact, no blue envelope containing cash was ever recovered. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of May 9th, Ms. Dietze and Mr. Porter attended at the Hmnan Resources Depa~nent where they inet with Gall Rozell, the Acting Director of Human Resources and Inghd Hobbs, a Personnel Officer. Ms. Dietze advised Ms. Rozell and Ms. Hobbs of the shortages which had been discovered in the floats that morning and also indicated that there had been a shortage in the Parking Office in March. As well, Ms. Dietze explained that the Grievor was solely responsible for both the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats and expressed the view that she had engaged in theft. Ms. Rozell recmmnended that Ms. Dietze and Mr. Porter ~neet with the Grievor to question her further with regard to the shortages and suspend her pending investigation. Later on the afternoon of May 9th, Ms. Deitze and Mr. Porter met with the Grievor who suggested that perhaps the blue envelope was in thc garbage. As a result, Ms. Deitze retrieved the garbage that had been picked up in the Parking Office that afternoon and locked it up until she had an opportunity to go through it. During the meeting on May 9th, the Grievor also acknowledged that she was the only person with keys to the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats. At the conclusion of the meeting, she was asked to return all keys and was suspended with pay pending invesligalion. 12 On Tuesday, May 10th, Ms. Dietze inet with Mr. Magoon at approxi~nately 9:30 a.m. and at that time, it was agreed that she would inform Mi'. Porter and Ms. Rozell of the bt. ne envelope which she had seen in the top ch'awer of the filing cabinet during the Grievor's break the previous day. Thereafter, on May 1 lth, Ms. Rozell met with Ms. Dietze and Mr. Porter to further investigate the shortages. During that ineeting, Ms. Dietze produced two documents, the first of which contained a breakdown of the ~nonies in the $800.00 float based upon the figures input by the Grievor on Friday, May 6th as well as a breakdown of the float following the count conducted by Ms. Dietze and the Grievor on the ~norning of May 9th. This docmnent indicates that whereas there were twelve $10.00 bills on Friday, there were only ten on Monday and although there were eight $20.00 bills on Friday, there were only two on Monday. The document also indicates that on both Friday and Monday, the float included forty-five $2.00 bills and twenty-four $5.00 bills. In fact, Ms. Dietze testified that this was an unusually high number of these denominations and supported this assertion with a further document she prepared setting out the quantities of coins and bills in the $800.00 float fi'om late March to May, 1994. This latter document indicates that prior to the week of May 2nd, there was never an occasion when the number of $2.00 or $5.00 bills exceeded twenty. The Grievor testified, however, that she frequently kept a Ire'ge nmnber o£ s~nall bills in the $800.00 float. 13 As to lhc $2,000.00 lloat, thc documcnt pmduccd by Ms. Diclzc indicatcs that on the afternoon of May 6th, the float included fifty-eight rolls of quarters as well as one loonie, one $2.00 bill, six $I0.00 bills, twenty-one $20.00 bills and one $50.00 bill. The docmnent also indicates that when the float was counted on May 9th, there were only thi~ty-tlu'ee rolls of quarters, no loonies and no bills. In respect of this float, Ms. Dietze testified that it was unusual to have a high nmnber of $20.00 bills and again supported this assertion with a document setting out the quantities of coins and bills in the $2,000.00 float during the period fi'om late Mm'ch to early May, 1994. Finally, Ms. Dietze carried out an analysis of the bank deposit for Monday, May 9th which consisted of monies received on Friday, May 6th. This analysis indicates that, apm't from a sm-plus of $10.00 in the float box of one of the Parking Attendants, the total monies deposited coincided with the total collected although the deposit was ~nade up of $150.00 more in quarters and $150.00 less in bills. Ms. Dietze also testified that there was no transaction which would have accounted for difference in denominations. On the evening of May 1 lth, Ms. Rozell and Ms. l)ietze exmnincd thc garbage that Ms. Dietze had locked up previously and confinned that it contained ite~ns which had been picked up frmn the Pm'king Office on the afternoon of May 9th. Both Ms. Dietze and Ms. Rozell testified that although they discovered a blue envelope in the garbage, the envelope contained the name of a faculty ~nember in an adjacent office 14 where the garbage was also picked up on thc afternoon of May 9th. In any cvcnt, lhc envelope contained no cash. Ms. Dietze also testified that the envelope which she saw on the morning of May 9th was blank whereas the Grievor testified that her writing appeared on the envelope in which she kept the bills for the $2,000.00 float. On May 1 lth, Ms. Dietze also viewed the videotape from a camera located in the Parking Office and testified that she observed nothing unusual on the afternoon of May 6th or the morning of May 9th. On Friday, May 13th, the Grievor was called to a meeting with Ms. Rozell, Ms. Dietze and Mr. Porter. She was accompanied by two Union representatives. During the meeting, in response to a question from Ms. Rozell, the Grievor indicated that she had counted the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats between 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Friday, May 6th and had not provided change to anyone thereafter. At the hearing, however, she suggested that she may have provided change after the counts were conducted although she could not recall. In any event, at the meeting on May 13th, the Grievor also explained in so,ne detail the steps she had taken to obtain smaller bills for the $800.00 float on the morning of May 9th and in the process, ~nisplaced the.blue envelope in which she kept the bills for the $2,000.00 float. During the ~neeting, Ms~ Rozell advised the Grievor that Ms. Dietze had seen a blue envelope in the top drawer of the filing cabinet during her break on Monday ~norning. The Grievor, however, denied any knowledge of that envelope. She also denied taking money fi'mn either the $800.00 or $2,000.00 float 15 although she did acknowledge that she had been careless with respect to the monics contained in those floats. Ms. Rozell testified that, for a number of reasons, she could not accept the Grievor's version of events. In pm-ticular, she testified that the Grievor made no ~nention of the fact that there was a difference in the nmnber of coins contained in the $2,000.00 float between Friday, May 6th and Monday, May 9th, nor did she offer any explanation for this difference. Nevertheless, the Grievor testified that she was not aware that there was a difference in the number of coins as she was not provided with the docmnents prepared by Ms. Dietze until the first day of hearing. She also acknowledged initially that the difference in the number of coins could only be explained by her having provided change from the $2,000.00 float prior to closing on Friday, May 6th. Nevertheless, at another point in her evidence, she suggested that she took a number of rolls of quarters from the $2,000.00 float and exchanged them for bills in the bank deposit. According to the Grievor, she then placed the bills in the blue envelope. In any event, Ms. Rozell also testified that, in her view, it would have been unusual to take $10.00 and $20.00 bills fi'om the $800.00 float to obtain smaller bills fi'mn the $2,000.00 float as slnaller bills were generally kept in the $2,000.00 float. Ms. Rozell also pointed out that, in fact, the $800.00 float contained forty-five $2.00 bills. As well, Ms. Rozeli found it unusual that on the Gfievor's version of events, she had lime to 16 lock the drawer of the filing cabinet in the vault room'before going to answer the telephone and yet walked out of the room with an envelope containing bills which were not to be re~noved from that room. In fact, the Grievor testified that she locked the drawer of the filing cabinet as soon as she re~noved the envelope containing the bills for the $2,000.00 float. Finally, Ms. Rozell testified that she was aware that the Grievor was experiencing financial difficulties and that in the period fi'om January to May, 1994, her wages were garnisheed to satisfy an outstanding credit card liability. The Grievor testified, however, that she was able to meet her daily expenses and that when she experienced financial difficulties, she was able to obtain assistance fi'mn her mother. She also testified that her wages were subject to gamistunent in 1989 at which time she was working in the Registrar's Office and had responsibility for College funds. However, there was no suggestion at that ti~ne that she had ~nisappropriated such funds. The decision to discharge the Grievor was made by Ms. Rozeil in conjunction with Dan White, the Vice-President of General Services, and Howard Rundle, the Acting President of the College. Ms. Rozell testified that she reconunended that the Grievor be discharged as she did not accept the Grievor's explanation concerning the shortages in the $800.00 m~d $2,000.00 floats and crone to tile conclusion that the Grievor had engaged in theft. Ms. Rozell also testified that although the College 17 contacted the police, it did not press criminal charges as, atnong other ~natters, the Grievor's father had recently passed away and she was experiencing financial difficulties. In these circumstances, it was the College's view that her discharge constituted a sufficient penalty. The letter of discharge, which is dated May 19, 1994 provides as follows: May 19, 1994 REGISTERED MAIL Ms. S. O'Neill Dear Ms. O'Neill, On May 9, 1994 it was discovered that $923.00 of college funds was missing fi-om cash drawers which you are exclusively responsible. We have now fully investigated this ~natter and find that your explanation for this loss is unsatisfactory. We have concluded that you are responsible for this loss. You are hereby info~xned that your e~nploy~nent with the college is terminated for cause effective immediately. Yours truly, 'Howard Rundle' Howard Rundle, Acting President." The grievance was filed on May 20, 1994 and appended to the grievance was a letter fi'om Ms. O'Neill to the College expressing regret {)vet' the loss of the funds 18 and accepting responsibility due to carelessness on he[: part. The Grievor attributed her carelessness to the fact that she was grieving over the death of her father and taking Adavan, a medication prescribed by l!er physician. As well, the Grievor offered to repay the mouies and requested that sine be placed in a position which did not involve control of College fronds. TINe issue, then, is whether there was just cause for the discharge of the Grievor, Sanch'a O'Neill. In respect of this issue, there was no dispute that the burden of proof rests with the College. Moreover, even where serious tnisconduct is alleged, the College is required to prove its case on a balance of probabilities rather thm~ on the more stringent standm'd of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the proof required to satisfy the College's burden Nnay increase with the gravity of the offence alleged: see, Re Indusmin Ltd., and United Ce~nent, Li~ne and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local 488,(1978), 20 L.A.C.(2d) 87 (M.G. Picher) and Inco LiNnited and United Steelworkers of A~nerica August 28, 1990 (Burkett (unreported)). As to the facts, there was no dispute that at the material time, the Grievor had exclusive responsibility for the $800.00 mid $2,000.00 floats which were maintained in the Parking Office. She was also the only individual with keys to the boxes in which these floats were kept. As well, she was required to count both floats each afternoon and 19 input thc ligm'cs into thc COmlmtcr which limn Iolallcd Ihe I]oats. No second count was conducted either by Ms. Brown or Ms. Dietze. Beginning in late March, 1994, the Grievor was also assigned responsibility for prepmng the bmtk deposit and had the only key for the filing cabinet in which it was kept. Turning then to the events of May 6th and 9th, both the docmnentation and the oral evidence of the Gdevor indicate that the floats balanced on the afternoon of May 6th. Moreover, the Board notes that at the meeting on May 13th, the Grievor advised Ms. Rozell that she did not ~nake change after she had counted the floats that afternoon. In our view, her state~nent on May 13th, which was made in close proxi~nity to the events in question, is to be prefen'ed to her evidence at the hearing in which she suggested that she may have provided change after the floats were counted. She acknowledged, however, that she could not recall having, done so. There was also no indication that she ~nade change frown either of the floats on the morning of May 9th. Nevertheless, when the floats were counted, there were shortages totalling $923.00. Although the Gfievor admitted responsibility for tile loss, she attributed the shortages to carelessness on her part. However, having considered the evidence as a whole, we find the Grievor's version of events to be i~nplausible. In this regard, the Grievor testified that on the morning of May 9th, she took one $10.00 bill and a nmnber of $20.00 bills fi'om tile $800.00 float to obtain s~naller bills and, in particuhtr, $2.00 and 20 $5.00 bills fi'o~n the $2,000.00 float. Although Ms. Dietze testified that small bills were generally kept in the $2,000.00, rather than the $800.00, float, the Grievor testified that she often kept a large number of small bills in the $800.00 float, hi any event, we find that no finn conclusions can be ckawn based upon the usual composition of the floats. It is significant, however, that on May 9th, the $800.00 float contained forty-five $2.00 bills mid twenty-four $5.00 bills. In these circumstances, the Grievor was rulable to offer any explanation as to why she required additional s~nall bills for that float, it is also significant, we fmd, that on the afternoon of May 6th, the $2,000.00 float contained only one $2.00 bill and no $5.00 bills and Crrievor achnitted that she did not use the float prior to the counts being conducted by herself and Ms. Dietze on the Inorning of May 9th. Moreover, the Grievor was evidently awm'e of the composition of the $2,000.00 float as she suggested at one point in her evidence that she intended to replenish the small bills in that float on May 9th. There was no indication that she did so prior to 10:00 a.ln. and, therefore, could not reasonably have been e,xchanging large bills in the $800.00 float for small bills in the $2,000.00 float. As pointed out by the College, there was also a discrepancy in the coins contained in the $2,000.00 float. In this regard, the evidence indicates that on Friday, May 6th, the float contained fifty-eight rolls of quarters whereas on Monday, May 9th, the float contained only thirty-three rolls of quarters. Although the Grievor testified that 21 sim was not aware of this discrepancy until the first day of hearing, she also suggested that she exchanged a number of rolls of quarters from the $2,000.00 float with bills in the bank deposit. However, Ms. Dietze testified that there would have been no reason to retnove coins from the $2,000 float as that float was used to provide change to other services. Moreover, while the exchange described by the Grievor would explain the difference in coins and bills in the bank deposit, it would account for a difference of only fifteen rolls of quarters iii tile $2,000.00 float whereas the evidence indicates tha! Ihere was a difference of twenty-five rolls of quarters between Friday, May 6th and Monday, May 9th. Furthermore, on the Grievor's version of events, she misplaced only the blue envelope containing bills and, therefore, provided no explanation for the difference of ten rolls of quarters in the $2,000.00 float. In the Board's view, it also seems improbable that if the Grievor had misplaced the blue envelope, she would have forgotten about it altogether until such time as the shortage was discovered in the $800.00 float Finally, there is the evidence of Ms. Dietze who testified that site saw a blue envelope containing a maximum of $300.00 in a filing cabinet adjacent to the Grievor's desk when the Grievor was on her morning break on Monday, May 9th. According to Ms. Dietze, the envelope was in close proximity to the Grievor's wallet. In fact, the Grievor did not appear to dispute that her wallet was in the drawer at that time as she took her change purse, rather than her wallet, with her on her break. Although the Grievor also professed to have no knowledge of the envelope observed by Ms. Dietze, it 22 is noteworthy that this envelope was precisely the same colour as tile missing envelope in which the Grievor kept the bills for the $2,000.00. Moreover, although Mr. Porter did not find the envelope when he later searched the filing cabinet, by that point, the Grievor had taken another break and, therefore, had the opportunity to re~nove tile envelope and in doing so, could have concealed it frown Ms. Dietze. Fm-thermore, although the envelope observed by Ms. Dietze apparently contained significantly less thm~ $923.00, it tnay well be that the Grievor relnoved other ~nonies frmn tile floats at an earlier point. In any event, it is unnecessm-y to decide at precisely what point the Grievor removed funds fi'mn the floats in question. In our view, the totality of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Grievor tnisappropriated funds frmn the $800.00 and $2,000.00 floats and thereby engaged in theft. There is no doubt that theft involves lnajor ~nisconduct. Moreover, in this case, the Grievor consistently denied any involvement in the shortages in the Parking Office. Accordingly, while the Grievor may have had a good work record prior to the spring of 1994, given the serious nature of the offence, the Board finds that the penalty of 23 discharge must be upheld. In the result and For thc reasons set out, the grievance o1' Ms. O'Neill is hereby distnissed. 26-~h DATED AT TORONTO, this day of October, 1995. Chair "Peter Hetz" College Nominee "Jon Mc~anus" Union Nominee