You Make The Call
This instalment of You Make the Call involves an aviation worker who challenged his employer’s claim of poor performance as a reason for dismissal.
Andrew Hedlund was an aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) for Perimeter Aviation GP, a commercial regional airline in Winnipeg. Perimeter hired Hedlund in May 2012.
Hedlund worked at Perimeter’s main base at the Winnipeg international airport. He usually worked independently and his job duties included pre-flight inspections of aircraft. Recordkeeping was a big part of such inspections, as everything entered into an airplane’s technical log was part of its permanent record and Transport Canada required it.
Hedlund’s performance appraisals were generally average. With each one, his performance improved immediately following the appraisal, but it tailed off again over time. Management also met with him informally to discuss his performance.
In October 2014, Perimeter transferred him from heavy maintenance to line maintenance with the hope that the latter’s faster-paced environment would help him or at least uncover performance issues more quickly.
In September 2016, the company moved Hedlund to the night shift where a more structured environment and would give him more time to focus. However, eventually others didn’t want to work with him as they didn’t trust him to do his job properly.
After several verbal and written warnings, Hedlund was suspended for one day in January 2016 for failing to follow Perimeter’s code of conduct — he failed to change a tire on an airplane and remove paint from a set of controls after being directed to do both. The suspension letter stated that failure to fulfil his duties in the future would result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
In March 2016, Perimeter suspended Hedlund again, this time for three days. He had failed to complete a task card — a worksheet detailing the status of a task — at the end of his shift for the handover of maintenance on an aircraft. This was required by the company’s maintenance handover procedures. The suspension letter once again warned that similar misconduct in the future would result in further discipline, including possibly dismissal.
On Oct. 25, 2016, Hedlund was tasked with performing a daily inspection on an airplane. The next morning, the maintenance controller arrived and found out that a de-icing boot on the plane was delaminating — splitting into thin layers — from the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer on the tail section. The controller looked for himself and observed that it was sticking out too much for someone not to see it, especially in the well-lit hangar.
The controller checked Hedlund’s inspection report that confirmed he had signed off on it. No flags had been placed in the logbook and no task card had been generated for the de-icing boot. This was a serious concern as de-icing boots were critical to preventing ice from accumulating on the plane’s tail during flight. Too much ice could cause an airplane to stall and crash, so Perimeter paid special attention to de-icing equipment.
Perimeter terminated Hedlund’s employment for just cause. Hedlund challenged the dismissal, claiming he wasn’t provided with a reason for termination — Perimeter only did so after the complaint was filed. He also claimed that he had noted the defect during his inspection while the plane was outside, but his crew chief told him to carry on and he’d look into it. As a result, Hedlund didn’t create a task card.
However, the crew chief denied Hedlund had told him about the defect and said that, if he had, he would have told him to make a task card so it would be fixed.
YOU MAKE THE CALL
Was Hedlund wrongfully dismissed? OR Was Hedlund dismissed with just cause?
If you said Hedlund was dismissed with just cause, you’re right. The adjudicator had issues with Hedlund’s credibility when he said he had told the crew chief about it. The crew chief denied that was the case and it didn’t make sense that a task card wasn’t created as soon as Hedlund found the defect — that was proper procedure and it was an important repair. In addition, although Perimeter didn’t initially provide a reason for termination, it did so after Hedlund filed a complaint with the labour board, said the adjudicator.
The adjudicator noted that Hedlund was in a safety-sensitive position, as the records he created were part of “a complex regulatory regime designed to ensure air safety.” Transport Canada and Perimeter both relied on Hedlund to do his job properly and independently. Hedlund’s failure to detect an obvious and dangerous defect such as a failed de-icing boot posed a danger to the public and a serious breach in trust that he could perform his job properly, said the adjudicator.
With Hedlund’s previous disciplinary and performance issues, Perimeter had just cause to terminate Hedlund’s employment, the adjudicator said.
For more information, see:
• Hedlund and Perimeter Aviation GP Inc., Re, 2019 CarswellNat 5125 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.).
