Background:
Martin-Brower of Canada Co., a strategic supply chain provider for McDonald’s restaurants in Western Canada, faced a grievance after terminating a long-haul driver (the “Grievor”) for alleged time theft. The dispute escalated to arbitration under the parties’ collective agreement, which governed hourly employees, including drivers.
The Incident:
On July 26, 2023, the Grievor submitted a claim for a “missed lunch” of 45 minutes but had actually taken a 26-minute break. Additionally, the driver logged off the electronic tracking system (Samsara) about one hour after physically leaving the property, effectively claiming payment for time not worked.
The Employer, relying on vehicle GPS tracking, driver manifests, and video evidence from a client site, determined that the Grievor had misrepresented his hours and terminated him for cause on July 28, 2023.
Key Findings:
- Time Theft Is Serious Misconduct:
Arbitrators consistently uphold termination for “time theft,” even for first offenses, because it directly undermines the trust between employer and employee—especially in roles with independent or unsupervised work. - Documentation and Objective Evidence Matter:
The Employer’s audit relied on multiple forms of objective evidence—electronic logs, GPS tracking, manifests, and video—to establish the driver’s misconduct. This made the case for termination stronger than relying on hearsay or supervisor recollection alone. - Employee Responsibility for Accuracy:
The Grievor had certified his logs as accurate. Failure to verify and correct misstatements reinforced the finding of culpable misconduct. Employers benefit when policies clearly state employees’ responsibilities for self-reporting time accurately. - Arbitration Framework – Culpability and Proportionality:
Using the Re Wm. Scott framework, the arbitrator considered:- Whether the employee was culpable (yes, for claiming unworked time)
- Whether termination was “just and reasonable”
- If a lesser discipline could be substituted (none found appropriate)
- Mitigating Factors Are Limited in Dishonesty Cases:
Even a clean disciplinary record does not outweigh deliberate misrepresentation of hours. The arbitrator noted the employee’s lack of insight, accountability, and credibility in his explanations.
Employer Takeaways:
- Clearly Communicate Policies on Timekeeping:
Employees should understand their obligations to log hours accurately, including lunch breaks, relief periods, and off-duty time. Written policies that specify consequences for misreporting can prevent disputes. - Use Technology Effectively, but Verify Accuracy:
Electronic systems like Samsara provide objective data to support payroll and performance audits. Employers should regularly review logs for discrepancies and provide guidance on system use. - Investigate Thoroughly Before Termination:
Collect multiple sources of evidence—digital, paper, and eyewitness accounts—to substantiate any claim of time theft. Avoid relying on assumptions or single-source information. - Document Employee Certification and Misconduct:
When employees certify timesheets or logs, retain this as evidence in case of disputes. Certification demonstrates employee acknowledgment of responsibility. - Progressive Discipline Isn’t Absolute:
Serious misconduct such as dishonesty or time theft may justify immediate termination, even for first offenses. The severity of the act, potential impact on the business, and the employee’s role should guide proportionality. - Maintain Trust as a Core Metric:
In roles requiring independent work, employee integrity is essential. Misrepresenting hours undermines operational efficiency and client relationships, justifying strong employer action.
Conclusion:
The Martin-Brower case reinforces that time theft is taken seriously by arbitrators. Employers who combine clear policies, reliable technology, thorough investigations, and documented employee accountability can confidently address misconduct, even in cases involving short-term employees or first offenses.
Source: 2025 CanLII 62696 (AB GAA) | Martin-Brower of Canada Co. v Teamsters, Local 362 | CanLII
