Employee had history of conflict and had last chance agreement prohibiting outbursts
An Ontario worker’s heated argument with a supervisor was the “last straw” that gave her employer just cause for dismissal, an arbitrator has ruled.
The employee, referred to as Susan X, worked at the Northumberland County Materials Recovery Facility in Cobourg, Ont. Her job was to monitor and sort through materials for recycling along a moving line. Employees at the facility moved around on different assignments with different co-workers as required.
Susan, who started working at the facility in 2002, had a strained relationship with several co-workers. Her ex-husband, from whom she separated in 2009, also worked at the facility. After the separation, management emphasized the need for them to keep personal life and home life separate and they would try to schedule them on separate shifts, but there would be no guarantee that could happen all the time. Since there were only 38 employees at the facility, it was likely they would have to work together at some point.
Susan agreed to the arrangement, though she claimed to be worried about working near her ex-husband because they might get into arguments. However, they still drove to and from work together and often ate lunch together.
Susan had a history of friction with co-workers and misconduct, including failing to wear safety equipment, pulling down a co-worker’s pants, yelling, using profanity and arguing with people. She was warned several times that her behaviour was unacceptable and twice received five-day suspensions for her misconduct. After one dispute that led to an angry tirade in her supervisor’s office, Susan was asked to sign a code of conduct. In June 2009, she screamed at her supervisor after she was caught without safety glasses, and the county drew up a last chance agreement.
The last chance agreement, signed on June 18, stated that Susan had “one last opportunity” to remain employed at the facility. The agreement required her to avoid any more “angry outbursts and inappropriate behaviour” and said she must seek anger management counselling through the employee assistance program. Failure to abide by the agreement would result in “immediate discharge from employment by the county without notice or severance.” Susan also wrote a note to management saying she would “not blow up anymore.”
Refused to work with ex-husband
On Sept. 22, 2009, Susan complained to her supervisor that her line wasn’t going fast enough and her co-workers were “miserable people” who were slowing down the line just to annoy her. Susan’s supervisor asked her and some other employees to move after lunch to another line in the facility as someone on the other line had gotten sick. However, Susan’s ex-husband was working in that area and she didn’t want to work near him. She believed that management had promised to keep the two of them apart and she was being set up. She loudly protested and, according to the supervisor, got “in my face” shouting and waving her arms. She complained that he was not living up to the agreement and he was trying to set her up.
The supervisor tried to walk away but Susan followed him, yelling and continuing to wave her arms. Other employees saw her begin to argue before she followed the supervisor out of the work area. The supervisor claimed that as Susan followed him into his office, he became concerned things might deteriorate into violence. He tried to calm her down and explain that there was no guarantee she would never have to work with her ex-husband, but Susan insisted there was a “deal” and she refused to make the move.
The supervisor relented and left her on her original line for the rest of the day, but after lunch she continued to berate him about a broken promise and how they were trying to set her up.
The facility’s management reviewed the incident and felt it constituted an “angry outburst” that was prohibited by the last chance agreement. They decided to terminate Susan’s employment, effective Sept. 24, 2009. Susan claimed she had disputed the move more calmly. The union grieved her dismissal, arguing it was reasonable to expect an emotional response to an order that she felt was unfair, and termination was too harsh.
The arbitrator found Susan’s account of the incident lacked credibility due to her tendency to overreact and in the face of the accounts of the supervisor and co-workers. The arbitrator also agreed that there was no “deal” that Susan would never work with her ex-husband, just that the county would try to avoid it whenever possible. It also didn’t make sense to the arbitrator that Susan would be so adamant to avoid working near her ex-husband when she commuted and ate lunch with him every day.
The arbitrator found that Susan reacted angrily to the point where the supervisor was worried the situation would escalate. She also continued her unruly behaviour later, even after she got her way. This behaviour was sufficient to qualify as an “angry outburst” described in the last chance agreement and provided just cause to terminate her employment, said the arbitrator.
“Perhaps (Susan’s) behaviour on Sept. 22 was not as extreme or as explosive as the employer or her co-workers had witnessed before,” said the arbitrator. “But I find that it did fall within the parameters of the last chance agreement.”
For more information see:
