The Union of Calgary Co-op Employees successfully challenged the termination of one of their members in the Union of Calgary Co-op Employees in Calgary Co-operative Association v Union of Calgary Co-op Employees, 2026 CanLII 2712 (AB GAA). In that case, the Employer had terminated the grievor, a 64-year-old woman who had been employed at Co-op for 19 years, for breaching their Internal Theft policy and being dishonest. Her alleged misconduct: she allowed a customer to use her membership app to access an advertised discount and lied to her supervisor by stating that the customer was her uncle.
An elderly customer had requested assistance from the Grievor in accessing a $5.00 discount on ice-cream which had been advertised in the Co-op flyer. She was unable to help him because he needed to use a new app which was not compatible with his phone. Since he could not access the app, the Grievor allowed him to use her app to use the discount on two tubs of ice-cream. This gave her a kick-back of approximately $0.65. Her supervisor authorized the transaction, on the incorrect assumption that the customer and the Grievor were related. The Employer alleged the Grievor lied by claiming the customer was her uncle.
While her breach of policy was clearly established, Drew Blaikie of Chivers Carpenter successfully argued that the Grievor’s alleged dishonesty was not proven on the available evidence and distinguished the situation from other sweethearting cases. This led Arbitrator Norrie to find that the Grievor’s termination was excessive, despite the Grievor’s substantial discipline on record. Arbitrator Norrie substituted the Grievor’s termination with a six-month suspension.
In her decision, Arbitrator Norrie highlighted that:
- the Employer’s investigation was flawed because the investigator did not interview the cashier (the most relevant witness) or investigate the Grievor’s allegedly dishonest comment that the customer was her uncle,
- the Grievor was credible as she provided consistent testimony and testimony which was contrary to her interests,
- the Grievor’s motivation was customer service, not obtaining a personal benefit,
- the supervisor’s approval of the transaction removed much of the Grievor’s responsibility,
- the Employer did not suffer a loss because the customer was eligible to receive the discount and a supervisor admitted that he would have permitted the discount if he had been aware of the situation, and
- discipline was still warranted because the Grievor committed a deliberate breach of policy.
Importantly, Arbitrator Norrie accepted the Union’s argument that the Grievance was distinguishable from other sweethearting cases because the Grievor facilitated the customer’s access to a discount that was available to the customer, notwithstanding his technical difficulties. She drew a clear distinction between an employee facilitating access to a legitimately available discount and traditional sweethearting cases involving unauthorized discounts or altered pricing.