An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a cleaner who took a passenger’s jacket home from a restricted food court area at Vancouver Airport and did not return it for 11 days.
The ruling centres on whether E.Q., the dismissed employee, had intended to keep the lost item or simply forgot to turn it in because of personal distractions. The union, Service Employees International Union, Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers Union, grieved the termination, arguing that E.Q. lacked any dishonest intent.
The employer, Bee-Clean Building Maintenance, learned of the incident from the RCMP. A police officer, S.J., reviewed airport surveillance footage and concluded E.Q. had taken a passenger’s jacket during her shift, placed it in her janitorial cart and then concealed it in her backpack. “Despite the opportunity to rectify the situation, you neglected to take appropriate action,” the employer wrote in a dismissal letter to E.Q. The employer characterized this as a “direct violation” of its policies, saying it could terminate immediately for conduct including theft or fraud.
Incident details and investigation
The events began when E.Q. finished her 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. cleaning shift one Saturday. Video footage allegedly showed her removing a passenger’s jacket from a food court in the domestic terminal.
According to the employer, E.Q. neither reported the jacket nor placed it in Lost and Found as required. After the passenger complained, the RCMP contacted the employer’s on-site manager, H.K., to identify the individual in the surveillance images. H.K. recognized E.Q. and immediately alerted the employer’s human resources manager, H.S.
Concerned about possible theft, H.S. set up a meeting with E.Q. that afternoon. Also present were C.S., a senior liaison for aviation and retail, and B.R. from Human Resources, who could communicate in Tagalog. Shop steward A.O., who also speaks Tagalog, attended to support E.Q. The arbitrator’s report indicates E.Q. first denied taking any jacket but, when told of video evidence, admitted she had brought a jacket home.
The employer testified that E.Q. said the item was still at her home and that she could return it. However, her initial denial raised suspicion. H.S. noted that “during the investigation, you admitted to placing the jacket within your backpack and taking the jacket home. It is pertinent to note that you had ample time … to return the jacket but failed to do so.”
Employee’s explanation and timeline
According to E.Q., she discovered the jacket after it had been left unattended for up to an hour. She testified she intended to hand it in but became “spaced out” after receiving a text from her daughter about the sudden death of a close family member. She said she was devastated by this news and forgot to stop at Lost and Found as she walked to the employer’s office.
E.Q. recalled noticing the jacket in her backpack once she got off the SkyTrain. She did not alert anyone because, as she testified, her limited English prevented her from sending a more detailed message. She also said she felt guilty and “didn’t want to lose more wages” by taking time off to deal with personal grief.
The employer pointed to inconsistencies in her account. While E.Q. described how she always carried her personal cleaning cloths in plastic bags, management insisted there were utility pails available and that the normal procedure would be to put cloths and found items in a visible container. The employer also noted that E.Q. communicated regularly with supervisors by text and could have, at any point, sent a quick note in English or Tagalog clarifying that she had forgotten to drop off the jacket.
Over the next 11 days, E.Q. continued working some shifts for Bee-Clean and possibly for another airport contractor. At no point did she inform the employer about having the jacket. It remained in her husband’s car trunk, according to her testimony. “I forgot. I was so upset about my niece’s death,” she told the arbitrator. The union underscored that E.Q.’s turmoil around two recent family deaths contributed to her forgetfulness and inability to focus.
Union’s position
The union submitted that E.Q. had no dishonest intent and a plausible explanation for her failure to return the jacket promptly. It highlighted the emotional stress and grief from two deaths in her family and argued her memory lapses were understandable in the circumstances. The union contended that firing an employee for a one-time lapse of judgment — particularly one triggered by a personal crisis — was unduly harsh.
Referring to the well-established principle that an employer alleging theft must prove dishonest intention, the union took the view that “there must be an intentional state of mind to deprive the owner.” It insisted that E.Q. provided an explanation “that is believable — one that might reasonably be true in all of the circumstances.”
Employer’s position
The employer maintained that E.Q.’s story was “not believable.” It drew attention to several points: the jacket was found in a restricted area where employees are entrusted to follow airport security protocols; E.Q. placed the jacket out of sight inside her backpack; she walked past the Lost and Found without reporting it; and she only admitted the facts when confronted with surveillance footage.
Management also questioned why E.Q., upon realizing she had the jacket, never once texted or called to notify them. The employer concluded that such extended inaction proved she intended to keep the property. It characterized the violation as serious misconduct under its zero-tolerance policy.
Arbitrator’s findings
After weighing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, the arbitrator concluded E.Q. intended to keep the jacket at some point. The ruling points out that her “explanation is not in harmony with all the circumstances and is not probable,” noting she took no steps to remind herself to return the item or inform the employer once she realized she still had it.
The arbitrator found that while the family tragedies were unfortunate, E.Q. “did nothing and took no step whatsoever to fulfill her stated original intention” to hand in the jacket. Her forgetfulness claim “was not credible” given her ability to keep working, send text messages and otherwise perform her duties. Citing inconsistencies in her statements, the arbitrator held there was sufficient cause for termination, especially considering her short length of service. The grievance was dismissed and E.Q. was not reinstated.
For more information, see Service Employees International Union, Local 2 Brewery, General & Professional Workers Union v Bee-clean Building Maintenance, 2025 CanLII 5357 (BC LA).
