An 18-year manager thought the bottle was bound for the trash, until her boss called it theft
A veteran liquor store manager wrote off a whiskey bottle she thought was defective, then donated it to a charity auction. Her employer called it theft and fired her. An arbitrator disagreed, found a lapse in judgment rather than theft, and sent her back to work.
In a decision dated July 14, 2026, arbitrator Koml Kandola ordered British Columbia's Liquor Distribution Branch to reinstate the store manager with no loss of seniority, substituting a three-month unpaid suspension for her dismissal. The grievance, brought by the BC General Employees' Union, arose after she removed a bottle worth about $135, which later sold at a charity silent auction for $725.
A donated bottle and a written-off code
It began on the sales floor of a British Columbia liquor store in October 2024. After a clerk stocked a new display of whiskey, the store manager, a nearly 18-year employee with a clean record, came over to review it. She testified that she found one bottle with a dented box and a damaged safety seal, and concluded it could not be sold.
According to her evidence, she meant to log the bottle as defective but picked the wrong code, recording it instead as in-store breakage. Store video showed her acting in plain view. She put the bottle in her bag, paid for other items but not that one, and later donated it to a charity silent auction, where it sold for $725.
A clerk soon noticed the bottle missing, checked the inventory report and reviewed the footage. When the regional manager raised the matter, the manager called him, learned he was not comfortable with the donation, and immediately offered to pay for the bottle, which she did. The branch investigated and, in May 2025, terminated her over alleged theft and policy violations.
Weighing intent against an honest mistake
For the arbitrator, the central question was whether the manager intended to steal. Under the long-standing Wm. Scott test for workplace discipline, the employer had to prove theft on clear and cogent evidence, including a dishonest intention. The branch argued the manager knew that removing the bottle was wrong and acted deliberately. The union countered that she held an honest but mistaken belief she could donate product bound for disposal, and gained nothing personally.
Kandola preferred the manager's account over the regional manager's, whose evidence the arbitrator found had changed between the 2024 investigation and the 2026 hearing. As the arbitrator put it, "It is trite that memory typically does not improve as years pass." Kandola also noted the regional manager waited 11 days to report the matter, and that his own written statement had described the episode as a poor decision rather than deliberate wrongdoing.
The arbitrator found the branch had made out a prima facie case of theft, but that the manager gave a believable explanation that could reasonably be true, which left intent unproven. On that basis, Kandola held the employer had not established theft. Even so, the arbitrator found she had breached the branch's breakage and purchasing policies, a serious lapse in judgment that warranted some discipline.
A three-month suspension replaces dismissal
On penalty, Kandola found termination excessive. The manager had nearly 18 years of service and no prior discipline, was well regarded by peers and superiors, apologized as soon as she realized her error, and did not benefit personally. The arbitrator described her remorse as sincere and found little risk she would repeat the conduct.
The arbitrator also weighed the employer's own process. Investigators had found the manager "honest and forthright" and had not substantiated a claim that she profited personally. The executive who decided on termination acknowledged he had relied solely on the investigation report and had not spoken with anyone involved before reaching his conclusion.
Kandola ordered the manager reinstated with no loss of seniority and substituted a three-month unpaid suspension, but declined to award back pay, citing the need for deterrence in retail and the fact that she had not sought other work after a heart attack and a decision to care for her son. Reflecting on the episode, the manager testified: "I regret that mistake every single day."
See British Columbia v British Columbia General Employees’ Union, 2026 CanLII 72713 (BC LA)
