Firing excessive after workplace fight

A British Columbia worker who was fired for fighting with a colleague has been reinstated by an arbitrator with a one-month suspension instead.

The worker was employed with Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada at a BC warehouse with 30 years of seniority.

On Jan. 19, 2023, the worker and a colleague passed each other in a doorway and the worker’s lunch kit brushed against the colleague. According to the colleague, the worker made no effort to get out of the way, so he reported the incident to his supervisor.

Later that day, the colleague left the warehouse to load his truck in the yard. He claimed that the worker stared him down as he did so. While the colleague loaded his truck, the worker was sitting in his truck preparing to leave. The colleague spotted him and made a rude gesture with his finger, causing the worker to walk over to him and ask him if he just “gave him the finger.” The colleague then explained that he did so because the worker was a “dick” and almost ran him over in the doorway earlier.

The colleague then moved away from the worker and called him a vulgar name, to which the worker said “no one talks to me like that.” According to the colleague, the worker also said he would kill him.

Physical altercation at work

The worker was standing on the elevated tailgate of his truck and he jumped down. The worker grabbed the colleague by the shoulders and bumped his chest and the colleague pushed the worker, moving him about five feet. The altercation was captured on surveillance video.

The video also showed that, after the push, the worker walked back to the colleague and punched him in the face while the colleague’s hands were by his sides with clenched fists.

The colleague put his fists up but moved back, while the worker moved towards him. According to the worker, he told the colleague that he “shouldn’t pull this bulls--t at work, and it wasn’t over.” According to the colleague, the worker said “you don’t know who you are f---ing with, and you should go drive and think about what you did.”

The colleague reported the incident to their supervisor and was immediately apologetic. The worker found them and said the colleague had caused the incident by verbally abusing him. The supervisor had them provide written statements about the incident and sent them home with pay pending investigation. The colleague went to the doctor and was diagnosed with a broken nose.

Interviews lead to dismissal

Both employees were interviewed by Coca-Cola management and human resources. The colleague apologized again for his involvement, but the worker did not. The worker said he accepted responsibility and he shouldn’t have gotten out of the truck, but added “to have this kind of animosity, I think anyone would’ve done what I did.”

The worker also said that he was fearful of injury to his legs and he only made contact with the colleague’s face because his hands were up. However, the video footage showed the worker moving quickly towards the colleague before punching him and showing a significant force behind the punch – and the worker’s nose was broken.

Coca-Cola reviewed the video footage and their written statements and determined that the worker was the aggressor, he wasn’t remorseful, he didn’t take accountability for his role in the incident, and he wasn’t truthful in the interview. It terminated his employment, while the colleague was suspended without pay for two weeks.

The union grieved the dismissal, arguing that it was a fight and the worker should have received the same discipline as the colleague. It also said that the employer accepted everything the colleague said and nothing the worker said, and  the punch wasn’t planned or deliberate.

Coca-Cola maintained that it had no confidence that the worker wouldn’t engage in similar violent conduct again and noted that it was statutorily required to keep the workplace safe. It added that the colleague acted differently than the worker by apologizing and showing remorse, and the worker was the first to make physical contact and was the aggressor.

Equality of discipline

The arbitrator found that the worker’s conduct deserved discipline and both employees were aggressors in the fight – the colleague was upset about the doorway incident and the worker was upset about being given the finger and being called a derogatory name. In addition, both made physical contact with each other at the start, said the arbitrator in determining that it was a two-sided fight that involved “the principles of equality of discipline.”

The arbitrator agreed that the worker wasn’t straightforward in his interview and failed to acknowledge he should have done anything differently, so he should be treated differently than the colleague, who clearly accepted responsibility.

The arbitrator also considered the worker’s lengthy service with no discipline on record due to a sunset clause, and that the punch was “a momentary flare-up.” Although the punch wasn’t justified, it was provoked by the colleague’s insult and jumping off the truck tailgate, the arbitrator said.

The arbitrator agreed that Coca-Cola was concerned about workplace safety, but found that the two-week suspension to the colleague reflected its true level of concern.

The arbitrator determined that dismissal was excessive and a one-month suspension was more appropriate. Coca-Cola was ordered to reinstate the worker with the suspension on his record and to compensate the worker for any lost wages and benefits. See Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada v. Teamsters, Local Union 213, 2023 CanLII 133060.