Circumstantial evidence backs firing for theft

The grievor was fired for theft from a fellow employee based on a surveillance video and her responses in an interview. While this constituted only circumstantial evidence, the arbitrator found, it did fulfill the probability test and was sufficient to support the termination.
By Mark Rogers
|Canadian Labour Reporter|Last Updated: 09/26/2011

The evidence of a lunchroom video surveillance camera was not sufficient by itself to establish that an employee had committed theft. However, additional circumstantial evidence supported the employer’s case for termination.

S.D. began working in 1999 at a distribution centre that serviced a large retail clothing chain. She had no discipline on her record when she was fired on Jan. 11, 2010.

It was not uncommon for employees to bring in merchandise to sell to other employees.