Unexplained absences end in termination for steelworker
Ever-evolving excuses have led an arbitrator to dismiss a grievance against Essar Steel.
United Steelworkers of America (USW) Local 2251 filed a grievance on behalf of a former Essar Steel employee, claiming the worker was improperly and unjustly discharged.
The former manufacturing line observer at the company’s steel plant in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., was fired on Oct. 19, 2012, after missing two shifts in a week-long period in September. The company claimed the worker was “less than forthcoming regarding the circumstances” surrounding his absences.
The worker was absent during an evening shift on Sept. 15 and again during a morning shift on Sept. 20. These absences, and his inability to explain them, led the company to find him in breach of the provisions in his Conditional Rehire or Last Chance Agreement.
The worker was scheduled to work a 12-hour shift starting at 6 p.m. on Sept. 15.
About a week before the shift the worker approached a front-line supervisor at the plant and asked for the day off. The supervisor testified the worker wanted to attend a job interview in Southern Ontario. The schedule for Sept. 15 had not yet been set, and so the worker returned to the supervisor a few days before the shift to ask again. The supervisor denied the request as the plant was scheduled to run at full capacity that day.
On Sept. 17, the supervisor arrived at work to find the worker had been absent for his Sept. 15 shift. The shift co-ordinator working that day, testified the worker said he had permission from the supervisor to miss his shift.
The plant’s timekeeping system, which records when employees swipe in and out of the plant, indicated the worker did not swipe in on Sept. 15.
The worker’s version of events is significantly different. When he was questioned about his absences by the company on Sept. 21, he said the shift co-ordinator granted him time off.
In his testimony during arbitration the worker said he was at work for his evening shift, but became sick and had to go home.
He said his swipe card did not work because of maintenance on the company’s computer system.
The worker also claimed the shift co-ordinator was “a liar” for claiming to be the shift co-ordinator that evening. He said another employee was the co-ordinator he reported to before going home sick. The shift report indicated the other co-ordinator was done working when the shift co-ordinator swiped in for his 6 p.m. shift on the evening in question.
Illness-related delays
Following Sept. 15, the worker’s next scheduled shift was Sept. 20. The night before his shift the worker called the company’s shift supervisor to inform her his interview had gone well, but he had been in a car accident.
The worker reportedly told the shift supervisor he was not injured and was trying to book a flight out of Toronto to be back in Sault Ste. Marie in time for his morning shift.
The worker did not report for work on Sept. 20. Asked what he did that day, the worker testified he was “stressed” and slept all day. He testified he left Toronto at 6 p.m. on Sept. 19 in a rental truck, as his vehicle sustained damage in the accident. The rental was mechanically defective and could only travel at a speed well below the limit. He testified he was ill and had to make frequent stops before spending the night in a hotel.
The worker was back on the road at 11 a.m. on Sept. 20 and continued to feel ill, making frequent stops until he returned to Sault Ste. Marie at 3 a.m. on Sept. 21. It took him 29 hours to complete a trip that, under normal circumstances, takes no more than nine hours.
Essar Steel’s HR representatives found the worker’s Sept. 15 appointment was informal and, contrary to what he had told his supervisor when he requested time off, the worker did not have a scheduled job interview. The company found the worker misrepresented the reason for wanting to be excused from his Sept. 15 shift and he could have made greater efforts to return for his Sept. 20 shift.
The union was unable to provide the company with information on the worker’s reason for absence on Sept. 15, but submitted the company was putting too much weight on the worker’s actions between Sept. 17 and Sept. 21, when he was off-duty.
Arbitrator William A. Marcotte found the worker’s version of events “defies all logic in light of the evidence from the company’s witnesses and records.”
Additionally, Marcotte found the worker’s explanation that he went to work but left due to illness to be inconsistent with his previous claim that the shift co-ordinator granted him time off.
The arbitrator found the worker misled the shift co-ordinator to believe he had been granted time off by a supervisor.
Regarding the Sept. 20 absence, Marcotte ruled the worker left Toronto in time for his shift but was unable to attend work due to illness-related delays.
The circumstances surrounding the Sept. 15 absence, however, were enough for the arbitrator to rule the worker was rightfully dismissed under provisions of his Last Chance Agreement. The grievance was dismissed. See Essar Steel and the United Steelworkers of America (USW) Local 2251 (Nov. 5, 2013),William A. Marcotte — Arb.
