Employee showed little regard for company's safety policies and had been disciplined several times previously
The British Columbia Arbitration Board has upheld the termination of a lumber mill employee who continuously flouted safety policies.
Iain Gilfillan worked at an International Forest Products (IFP) mill in Delta, B.C., from 1984 until his firing in 2008. IFP decided to fire Gilfillan on March 18, 2008, after he was seen walking through an area of the mill where employees were required to wear protective equipment such as hard hats, safety glasses and a vest. This incident came less than three months after Gilfillan had returned to work from a five-day suspension when he was told his future with IFP was “in your hands” and he would be on a six-month review period during which his performance would be assessed.
The earlier suspension and the March 2008 incident were the latest in a serious of disciplinary problems Gilfillan had over the course of his career. His record included 13 verbal reprimands, six written reprimands, seven one-day suspensions, three three-day suspensions, one five-day suspension, one 14-day suspension and two six-month probations between 1991 and 2008.
The safety violation was of particular note because after a 2007 strike, IFP took steps to ensure the workplace was safe. A written policy was communicated to all employees that included protective equipment checks, safety reviews, employee check sheets and a statement that all employees were required to wear safety gear before entering and while in the workplace. Gilfillan, along with other employees, acknowledged his awareness of the policy and attended a safety orientation in November 2007.
When his manager caught him without safety equipment in the latest incident, Gilfillan was told to go home while they reviewed the situation. Gilfillan swore at the manager and left through another work area, still without his protective equipment. On March 20, 2008, meeting with management, Gilfillan complained he was being harassed and he didn’t know not wearing a hard hat would result in discipline.
IFP felt Gilfillan had been given several chances to improve his behaviour, but his “actions and comments on March 18, 2008, clearly indicate you are not willing or able to conduct yourself in the manner required to continue the employment relationship,” so IFP terminated his employment.
The board found Gilfillan’s disciplinary record showed “a complete absence of responsibility for acceptable workplace conduct, defiance of supervisory authority and contempt for safety.” It found it hard to believe Gilfillan was surprised at being disciplined for the safety infraction, considering the orientation and safety policy that had been disseminated. Some of his previous misconduct had been safety-related, so he had already experienced discipline in that area.
