A Sunwing pilot sent a food order for fried chicken, watermelon, and beer to his colleagues, copying his black supervisor. This ended his 17-year career with a previously unblemished record. His employer, Sunwing, fired him for just cause stating that this food order was not a genuine food order, but a message that played racist and discriminatory tropes directed at Black people.
The pilot and his union filed a grievance against Sunwing, arguing that the message was in fact a genuine food order and that it was an unfortunate misunderstanding. They also urged the arbitrator to substitute the dismissal for a lesser punishment, pointing to the pilot's long-term service, a clean disciplinary record, the lack of progressive disciplinary measures, the one-off nature of the incident, and other factors.
The arbitrator upheld the employer's dismissal for just cause.
What Happened?
In Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) v Sunwing Airlines, 2026 CanLII 49713, during a layover in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Captain Acri, was placed at a hotel outside the city centre, rather than the planned one. The griever asked the airline to approve taxi expenses for the bank and for travel to restaurants and other amenities.
The airline refused but offered to deliver food to his hotel and asked what he wanted to order before restaurants closed, at around 9 - 11 pm.
The next day at around 1 am, Acri wrote back:
Can I get a large bucket of fried chicken with watermelon slices and a six-pack of non-alcoholic Bud Light beer for my friends and me?
Acri's Black supervisor was copied on the email, along with other colleagues, although he did not directly engage in the conversation.
The airline terminated Acri for just cause, alleging his food order was not genuine but a racist message playing on discriminatory tropes directed at Black people, including his direct Black supervisor, in front of a large audience.
The union and the griever argued that it was a genuine food order and a one-off incident. They further argued that the griever apologized and that there were other mitigating factors warranting a lesser disciplinary action.
The arbitrator had none of it. He found, on the balance of probabilities, that the food order was not genuine. He noted that the "order" was placed at 1am, 2 hours after the airline followed up and 5 hours after the start of the entire conversation. The arbitrator found it hard to believe that, after complaining about a lack of access to restaurants, the griever wanted only to "pop into Mary Browns and a grocery store."
Further, the griever never followed up on the food order. If it had been a legitimate order, the arbitrator questioned, "Why was there no follow-up to inquire when the order would be delivered or to ensure that his order had even been received?"
Regarding the griever's explanation that he had a friend pick up the food for him, the arbitrator refuted, "It is highly unlikely that he would put someone else to the trouble of picking up the food, particularly well into the early morning hours, without at least checking on the status of his order."
The arbitrator did not believe the griever had not noticed that his supervisor was copied, as the griever added others to the email string and must have realized his supervisor was copied.
The arbitrator also did not find that the griever truly apologized for his behaviour, as the griever suggested it was merely a misunderstanding and that he did not know the stigma associated with his order. The griever did not accept responsibility but offered an untrue explanation, which had the opposite effect of an apology.
Eventually, the arbitrator upheld the dismissal for just cause.
What Can Employees Learn from this Case?
For employees, this shows that discriminatory behaviour is a serious issue in the workplace. A one-off deliberate offence can justify termination for just cause, even for a long-term employee with a clean disciplinary record. Employers do not always have to go through a progressive disciplinary process. Also, an apology needs to be genuine, or it can make things worse.
What Can Employers Learn from this Case?
For employers, this means you can and should take workplace discrimination behaviour seriously. However, the arbitrator's reasoning also shows that, even for the most flagrant violation, termination for just cause can still be a delicate issue, with all the circumstances considered before reaching the appropriate disciplinary action. Careful consideration, consultation with expert legal professionals, and, if necessary, a proper investigation is generally recommended beforehand.
If you require assistance with disciplinary matters, please do not hesitate to contact us for expert advice and guidance.
