Addiction Does Not Mitigate Termination for Theft01/03/2011|Canadian Labour Reporter|Last Updated: 01/18/2011 Caught red-handed, and later fired after video surveillance recorded him stashing a 40-ounce bottle of Crown Royal in his pants, a warehouse worker for a provincial government liquor retailer grieved his termination. The union argued that the termination was void. The employer’s post incident interview with the worker before he exited the building constituted a “meeting” within the meaning of the collective agreement, the union said. This violated the collective agreement because — in addition to the right to union representation — the contract also entitled the worker to advance notice about the purpose of any meeting that may lead to discipline. In any case, the union said, a lesser penalty was appropriate. The theft was an aberration propelled by drug addiction. The worker was contrite and was taking action to address his condition. To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In Remember Me Forgot Password If you are a current Subscriber, please click here to set-up or update your login information.