Worker with history of disputes with management fired after argument with trainer
This instalment of You Make the Call features an employee with a history of workplace disputes getting in trouble while on a last chance agreement.
Dan Widsten was a millwright for Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Corporation in British Columbia. His work was considered good, but over his 23 years of employment he had anger management issues. In 2009 and 2010, Widsten was suspended three times for misconduct involving supervisors. By the third suspension, the company felt it was necessary to draw up a “last chance letter.” The letter stipulated that “further incidents of inappropriate conduct with company management personnel will not occur” and required Widsten to take an anger management program.
In December 2010, Widsten was involved in another incident with a co-worker and it turned out he hadn’t been attending the anger management program regularly. He was suspended for six weeks and a more formal last chance agreement was drawn up where Widsten was required to complete the anger management program and provide proof of its completion. The agreement stated that “any further behavioural issues in the workplace will result in your termination.”
The company clarified that the behavioural issues referred to would have to be “of a like or similar nature” as Widsten’s previous incidents.
Widsten had no further problems for some time and was even commended by management twice for his work and his attitude. However, in the fall of 2012, he had to deal with an outside trainer. The trainer had been rude and condescending to some employees and Widsten had a couple of disagreements with him over his use of millwrights’ tools. Widsten had also expressed his frustration with the amount of contracting out.
On Oct. 4, 2012, the trainer installed some equipment and dropped by the mill before leaving. One machine was out of service, so he looked for a millwright to check on it, but all were busy. The machine superintendent suggested the trainer look at it himself, so he did.
The trainer fixed the machine and on his way out he saw Widsten, so he decided to advise him about the repairs. Widsten turned around and, according to the trainer, “erupted” in yelling and verbal insults. The trainer also claimed Widsten said if he caught him “working in his shop or on his machines then he would break my arm,” while waving a steel bar in front of him.
The trainer reported the incident. The company investigated and other employees said they saw the trainer chasing Widsten while screaming and yelling. The trainer denied this and said Widsten’s behaviour was abusive.
Widsten had a different version of the incident, saying he told the trainer he should not be doing millwrights’ work, and the trainer was the one who “exploded.” Widsten admitted to getting angry, using profanity and saying, “the union is going to f---ing break you,” while punching his fist into his hand. He claimed he was trying to defuse things rather than escalate.
Widsten admitted his statements to the trainer were “over the line.” The company felt Widsten was downplaying his role in the incident and took the threat against the trainer seriously. Since Widsten was on a last chance agreement, the company dismissed him.
You Make the Call
Did the company have just cause for dismissal?
OR
Was there no just cause?
If you said the company did not have just cause for dismissal, you’re right. The arbitrator noted there were no witnesses to the incident, just some employees who saw the trainer chasing after Widsten. There was a problem with accepting the trainer’s account, since the trainer had not gotten along with others and was known to cause problems.
The arbitrator found it was more likely the trainer lost his temper before Widsten. Widsten acknowledged some responsibility for the incident, but the trainer portrayed himself as a victim and denied getting angry. Though both indicated Widsten may have threatened the trainer, it didn’t make sense for the trainer to stick around if he felt in danger, said the arbitrator.
Though Widsten played a role in the incident and was guilty of some misconduct, the arbitrator found the company shouldn’t have accepted the trainer’s version of events without an investigation. The trainer was as much a participant, which made Widsten’s behaviour “different than when he had challenged management personnel.” Since the last chance agreement specifically referred to conduct with management, the agreement should not have factored into the discipline, said the arbitrator.
