B.C. court weighs in on unsolved Christmas Day bank robberies from 2016

A Brinks truck is seen in this file photo. (shutterstock.com)

On Christmas Day in 2016, thieves stole nearly half a million dollars in cash from ATMs at several bank branches in Langley. Six years later, no charges have been laid, but a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision describes what one of the companies involved thinks happened.

The decision issued last month by Justice Christopher J. Giaschi deals with a jurisdictional issue arising from the collective agreement between Brink's Canada, Ltd. and Unifor Local 114, which represents its employees. 

The judge was asked to rule on whether the company's attempt to compel its former employee to pay back the $463,220 that was stolen could be decided by an arbitrator.

While the arbitrator found that the case was within his jurisdiction, the union disputed this assessment, petitioning the court for a review of the arbitrator's decision.

WHAT BRINKS SAYS HAPPENED

In his decision, Giaschi summarizes the events of Dec. 25, 2016, without much detail, writing only that the several ATMs at various Langley locations of an unnamed bank were robbed.

"The bank later determined that the alarms at each location robbed had been deactivated and reactivated using alarm codes assigned to (Brinks)," Giaschi wrote.

"Accordingly, on Jan. 3, 2017, the bank demanded reimbursement from (Brinks) of $463,220. The respondent complied with the demand and paid the bank the requested sum on Jan. 9, 2017."

In return, the judge noted, the bank released Brinks from any and all liability for the loss, and assigned Brinks the right to pursue legal action to recover the loss.

While the police investigation of the robberies has not resulted in any arrests or charges, Brinks conducted an internal investigation and concluded that one of its employees had been involved.

That employee, referred to throughout the court decision as "the grievor," was fired in November 2018, and Brinks filed a grievance under the collective agreement seeking the return of the stolen funds.

According to the court documents, Brinks concluded "on the balance of probabilities" that the grievor had been involved in the robbery. Giaschi noted that the company appeared to have reached this conclusion for the following reasons:

• The grievor was on medical leave at the time of the robberies
• One of the two robbers caught on video surveillance resembled the grievor
• The robbers appeared to have knowledge of the locations involved that a Brinks employee would have
• The alarm codes of the ATMs robbed had been issued to a co-worker of the grievor
• The robbers used a cloned electronic key in the crimes

The co-worker who was issued the alarm codes is not alleged to have been involved in the robberies, according to the decision.

"(The grievor) used his knowledge gained as a Brinks employee to circumvent the security features of the (bank) branches, ATM machines and Brinks Canada Ltd. and thus facilitate the robbery," the company wrote in its grievance, as quoted in Giaschi's decision.

THE UNION'S PETITION

After the grievor's termination, the union filed its own grievance regarding the firing. The parties initially agreed to the appointment of an arbitrator to rule on both grievances, but the union soon filed an objection to Brinks' grievance on the grounds that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

Both parties made written submissions to the arbitrator over the jurisdiction question, and the arbitrator issued a ruling on the matter in August 2020.

"The arbitrator concluded the dispute still fell within the collective agreement and that he therefore had jurisdiction to hear it," Giaschi wrote in his decision.

In petitioning the court for a review of the arbitrator's decision, the union argued that it and the grievor were not parties to agreements between Brinks and the bank, which it claimed formed the company's basis for considering the grievor's case under the collective agreement.

"What the arbitrator has purported to do in the decision is make an employee potentially liable under the collective agreement for a third-party customer’s losses by operation of the terms and conditions of commercial contracts to which that employee, and his union, are not parties," the union wrote in its submission to the court, as quoted in Giaschi's decision.

"This finding in effect incorporates those commercial contracts into the collective agreement."

For its part, Brinks argued that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and that the union had not demonstrated "sufficiently serious shortcomings" in his decision.

THE CONCLUSION

Ultimately, Giaschi sided with Brinks, concluding that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, and that the grievor owed a duty of fidelity to the company under the collective agreement. The allegations against him represent a breach of that duty, and therefore ground the grievance in the collective agreement, the judge wrote.

"Stealing money from the respondent’s client, the bank, is a breach of the duty of fidelity and a failure to act in the best interest of the respondent," Giaschi wrote.

"The fact that the money belonged to the bank may be relevant to what damages can be awarded pursuant to principles of causation and remoteness, but it does not change the essential character of the dispute or remove it from the auspices of the collective agreement."

The court's decision means it will be up to the arbitrator to rule on both whether the grievor's termination was appropriate and whether the grievor must pay Brinks any compensation related to the robberies.