Didn't follow safety policy of locking up system before cutting wires
This edition of You Make the Call features an electrical worker who didn’t follow proper safety lockdown procedure for his work.
Dominic Ierullo was an electrician for Alberici Construction in Burlington, Ont. Because its business involved equipment that could be hazardous, Alberici had specific safety guidelines for different types of work and equipment, which it provided to its employees.
In order to ensure the safety guidelines were followed, the company set out specific types of discipline for not following the guidelines according to the risk involved. For example, a failure to obey safety practices in circumstances that could “potentially cause death, serious injury or property damage” was considered a class one offence. Class one offences were further divided into three categories, and discipline was immediate termination, a three-day suspension or two days of retraining. The guidelines listed violating lock-out or tag-out procedures as a class one B offence.
Ierullo was disciplined in March 2011 for failing to wear proper safety equipment such as eye protection. The discipline involved both a written warning and a three-day suspension. At the same time, he was also disciplined for leaving a worksite three hours before the end of his shift without notifying his supervisor.
On July 11, 2011, Ierullo was working at a Chrysler plant in Etobicoke, Ont., where he was cutting a live 120-volt wire and taping it up. He also removed the rest of the wires present and taped them one at a time. However, he neglected to follow safety procedure and lock up the electrical system. He also didn’t use specialized equipment that was provided for doing the electrical work.
Ierullo’s manager noticed what he was doing and told Ierullo to go to the office. Alberici reviewed the situation and found Ierullo’s failure to lock down the electrical system while cutting live wires was a class one A offence because the potential for an accident resulting in death or serious injury was high. Since this type of safety violation was considered the worst, the company decided to terminate Ierullo’s employment.
The union, on behalf of Ierullo, argued that termination was too severe, as his safety record was good except for the incident involving eye protection. It also argued that even though Ierullo had not been employed with Alberici for very long, he had worked as an electrician for 23 years and had a good safety record during that time as well.
Was termination appropriate for such a safety violations?
OR
Was termination too severe in this case?
If you said termination was too severe, you’re right. The arbitrator noted there was a basic agreement between Alberici and the union that specified types of safety violations and the appropriate level of discipline, and Ierullo had a previous instance of violating safety protocols. However, the arbitrator found the previous incident was not serious and Ierullo’s failure to lock down the electrical system at the Chrysler plant, although serious, wasn’t serious enough to warrant dismissal.
The arbitrator examined earlier cases involving safety violations and found that generally, lock-out offences were treated as justifying discipline but “not the sort of industrial offence that would justify dismissal on its own.” Neither of his other instances of discipline warranted dismissal on their own, and combined they should not either, said the arbitrator.
Alberici was ordered to reinstate Ierullo with a one-month suspension without pay in place of termination, with a suspension letter indicating a last-chance provision stipulating any similar offence in the future would result in termination.
“There is no question that the negligence in this case could have caused serious injury and possibly death,” said the arbitrator. “However, it was a first offence of this type of seriousness or anything approaching it.”
