date sticker. What Ms. Smith did not know was that Ms. Weir had taken pictures that
established the best before date was January 31, 2021. The Employer submits if, as
Ms. Smith, Ms. Noble and Ms. Cherrey testified, it was normal to do what Ms. Smith did,
why did Ms. Weir consider it odd, worthy of taking pictures and report it to management.
 When it became evident to Ms. Smith that the existence of the photos meant that
the short code angle was not going to work, she shifted her story. In the Union's
opening statement, it was said that Ms. Smith went out to the floor and compared this
mispick product with similar small packs to arrive at a price. But now, through the
evidence of Ms. Smith, it is apparent she never went out and compared anything.
When the evidence was adduced, the Union’s case moved yet again with Ms. Smith
asserting there was a practice whereby store managers allowed employees to purchase
mispicks at whatever price they chose and to never bother telling management about it.
This alleged practice, according to the Union, dated back to Shelly, a member of the
bargaining unit who did not testify in this proceeding, who had no authority to permit
employees to steal. The Employer submits, even if Shelley had testified, and had
supported Ms. Smith’s version of events, it would not amount to a defense for Ms.
Smith’s actions. The Employer submits an adverse inference must be drawn from the
Union’s failure to call Shelley.
 In contrast, the store managers who have run store 883 for most of time since 2004
were very consistent, it was never a practice at this store whereby employees were
entitled to put mispicks aside, price them as they pleased, and then not even put them
up for customers but rather take them for themselves. If, the Employer argues, it is
accepted that Ms. Smith did not say she priced the chicken low because it was short
dated and the managers who testified are not believed, when you consider Ms. Smith’s
actions there's no conceivable honest explanation for why she double wrapped the
chicken packages together and then applied a highly reduced $5.00 label on both the
top and the bottom of the double packs. According to the Employer, Ms. Smith’s
dishonesty is further highlighted the fact that she goes to the cash with two double
packs of chicken, with a $5.00 price on the top and a $5.00 price on the bottom and she
allows the cashier to only charge her for one of them. It is the Employer’s submission,
there can be no argument that this is not obviously dishonest behavior. The Employer
argues such activity alone has got many people terminated over the years. This, the
Employer submits, is a case of planned and deliberate dishonesty and a grievor who
has refused to admit before you that what she did was wrong and dishonest. The
Employer submits there is no basis to interfere with the decision to terminate
 The Employer’s summary of the evidence is as follows. Eric Falba established that
Ms. Smith purchased the drastically reduced chicken on January 23, and again on
January 26, 2021. Mr. Falba found it odd that prime organic chicken was priced so low