Worker had concerns taking refresher training would change his status despite reassurances; training was a requirement for all employees
Background
Insubordination is considered a serious form of employee misconduct, as it can undermine management’s authority and potentially disrupt a workplace. As a result, it can often serve as grounds for dismissal. However, it may not be enough to provide just cause if the insubordination isn’t directly related to the job or other employees aren’t aware of it — even if it takes place over a couple of years.
An Ontario worker who was fired after months of refusing to take safety training required by his employer has been reinstated with a two-month suspension replacing his dismissal.
Michael Petrunik was hired by Candu Energy in April 2013 to work at its head office in Mississauga, Ont. as an “IntEC Application Support Professional.” Candu is involved in the design, construction, refurbishment and maintenance of nuclear power facilities across Canada and in other countries.
When Petrunik was hired, he completed Candu’s basic radiation protection training. Candu considered the training as a foundation of the company’s safety culture that ensured everyone was aware of the radiological contamination on the site and knew how to avoid it.
Petrunik was part of a group of employees who didn’t work in the radiological areas of the workplace. Those who did were called nuclear energy workers (NEWs) and had to take additional training on top of that taken by Petrunik and employees in his group.
In late 2016, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission renewed Candu’s licence and some changes were made to the radiological lab area at the head office. The changes required updates to the radiation protection training, so the company decided to have all employees take refresher training. Employees were notified that they were required to complete the training — which was computer-based and took less than one hour — by the end of February 2017.
Worker didn’t understand reason for safety training
A year later, not all employees had completed the training, so Candu sent another notice saying everyone should complete it by Jan. 31, 2018. Petrunik told his manager that he didn’t understand why he had to take the refresher training and he was worried that doing so would make him a NEW who might have to work in the radiological areas of the workplace. His manager assured him the training wouldn’t make him a NEW and the company wanted to ensure all employees were familiar with the issues around radiation protection as soon as possible.
However, Petrunik pointed out that the Candu website stated that all NEWs were required to take the training annually. His manager countered that the training wasn’t what made someone a NEW; it was the liklihood that their work exposed them to radiation. In addition, employees who became NEWs had to sign a form acknowledging their status as a nuclear energy worker — however, what the manager didn’t know was that Petrunik had signed such a form when he had been hired in 2013, which was why he didn’t want to take the training again.
Petrunik believed that he had been taught as a Candu employee that if things don’t seem right, step back and ask questions before proceeding — which he was applying in this instance. His manager responded that Candu had a right as an employer in the nuclear industry to insist that all of its employees were familiar with basic radiological safety.
Candu sent an email on Feb. 14, 2018 to about 65 employees who hadn’t yet completed the training. Petrunik replied that he would “rather not” take the training since he didn’t want to be grouped as someone who had completed “this sort of training.” The director of training responded that the training didn’t make him qualified for or have access to work in radiological areas and it was mandatory to ensure all employees were aware Candu had a licensed radiological facility onsite.
The company’s radiation protection manager met with Petrunik and explained that simply taking the training wouldn’t make him a NEW as there were several other steps to reach that status. Petrunik didn’t tell her about the NEW form he had signed upon his hire, so the manager didn’t understand his refusal. She finally agreed to allow him to skip the training, but the director of training overruled the decision.
Petrunik’s reluctance to take the training resulted in him being the only Candu employee who hadn’t taken the refresher training by mid-March. His manager set up a meeting with Petrunik, the vice-president of plant support engineering, and a human resources representative to try to understand Petrunik’s refusal. At the meeting, management explained that Candu required all employees to have a basic understanding of radiation, but Petrunik replied that the training didn’t apply to him and he wasn’t going to do it. The vice-president told Petrunik that he had the choice to take the training or leave, to which Petrunik replied, “Do you want me to leave now?” The vice-president said it was his choice to leave. Petrunik asked if he should come into work the next day and was told to come in at the normal time.
Resignation or not?
However, after Petrunik left, they discussed the fact that Petrunik had refused to take training that was a condition of employment and decided he had essentially resigned. He was presented with a letter of resignation to sign the next day, but Petrunik refused to sign it, stating he wasn’t resigning from his employment but would not do the training. He said he was being “persecuted” for his questioning attitude and he wanted a reason why the training was required other than “the company says so.”
Petrunik contacted Candu management two days later to confirm that he wasn’t resigning. The company maintained he had resigned but would “dismiss” his resignation if he agreed to complete the training before returning to work. Petrunik said he would take the training on certain conditions: he wanted a reason in writing why NEW training was required for a non-NEW worker, a list of radiation sources he might come into contact with and what measures were being taken to protect him from radiation exposure. Candu declined to meet the conditions.
A few weeks later, on April 10, Petrunik informed Candu that he had reflected on the matter, apologized for his behaviour and said he was prepared to take the training unconditionally if he was reinstated. Candu said it was “too little, too late” and didn’t think it was sincere, so it didn’t invite back. Petrunik then filed a claim of unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code.
The adjudicator found that Petrunik’s conduct leading up to his dismissal was “insubordinate and warranted a disciplinary response by the employer.” Multiple members of Candu management met with Petrunik and tried to assure him that he wouldn’t be made a NEW and his concerns were unnecessary. In addition, Petrunik acknowledged that his behaviour was insubordinate and he should have done the training.
The adjudicator also found that Petrunik’s claim that he simply wanted a good reason for the training wasn’t true — he was “repeatedly informed that the reason for the training was to ensure that [Candu] employees had some basic knowledge about the risks associated with radiation exposure.” Petrunik was given a reason, but he just didn’t agree with it, said the adjudicator.
In addition, the adjudicator noted that there was no convincing evidence that Petrunik’s concerns over the training were well-founded — Candu was within its rights to require the training and there was no threat to his safety. Petrunik also didn’t directly raise the fact that he had previously signed a NEW form — had he done so, management probably could have addressed that concern as well.
However, the adjudicator added that Petrunik only refused a task that was “tangentially related to his job duties,” the dispute wasn’t in front of other Candu employees and he had been encouraged by his employer to adopt a questioning attitude. These factors all lessened the seriousness of the insubordination, as well as the fact that Candu didn’t implement any progressive discipline before it terminated Petrunik’s employment — he wasn’t aware his employment was in jeopardy and wasn’t given a chance to change his mind before being fired, said the adjudicator, adding that after some reflection Petrunik apologized and was willing to take the training.
Candu was ordered to reinstate Petrunik’s employment with compensation for lost pay and benefits, with a two-month unpaid disciplinary suspension.
For more information see:
• Petrunik and Candu Energy Inc., Re (July 22, 2019), Doc. YM2707-11352 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.).
About the Author
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at [email protected], or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.
