Threatening co-worker and denying it was serious misconduct but employee’s regret after suspension was enough: Arbitrator
British Columbia employee’s late apology for threatening a co-worker didn’t excuse his attempt to mislead the employer’s investigation but warranted less punishment than dismissal, an B.C. arbitrator has ruled.
Glen Ford, 45, was a control room worker for Vancouver-based Teck Cominco Metals, having worked for the company off-and-on for 20 years. On June 23, 2011, Ford was working with three other male employees and a female summer student on the evening shift.
A few hours into the shift, the lead hand, Gordon Murdoch, asked Ford to grill some sausages that each worker had brought for their dinner in the lunchroom adjacent to the control room. One of the other workers had initially agreed to cook but he was caught up in some work. The summer student volunteered but admitted she had no experience barbecuing. Murdoch decided it would be best for Ford to do the grilling and told him to do it, but Ford resisted and made a vulgar comment about his pay grade and telling people what to do.
There was some back-and-forth discourse which was characterized as “witty banter and locker room chat” and Ford eventually agreed to grill the sausages. However, when Ford asked Murdoch “How tough are you,” Murdoch replied he was “tough enough to rip your Farrah Fawcett hairdo and shove it up your arse.” Ford walked away but later came up to Murdoch and told him if he followed through with plans to go hunting in an area up north and Ford saw him, he would “slit your throat, burn your quad (off-road vehicle) and bury the both of you in the back forty where no one will ever find you.” Ford also said it wouldn’t be the first time.
Murdoch went for a walk to cool down but claims Ford spoke to him again and said he should watch his back because Ford was going to “take you out.” Murdoch said to name the time and place and walked away.
The other workers heard most of the exchange, including the hair remark by Murdoch and Ford’s response. They heard the conversation get tense and words to the effect that Ford threatened to kill Murdoch if he went hunting up north. However, things seemed to be defused when Murdoch returned and Ford grilled the sausages. The four workers ate dinner together and the shift continued without further incident. However, at the end of the shift, Murdoch found his truck had been keyed and was sure Ford had done it. He was angry but wasn’t concerned about the earlier threat.
Employee initially denied he made threat then later apologized
A few days later, Ford’s wife called Teck’s superintendent of labour relations to complain about Murdoch. The company interviewed the four workers — including two with Ford — and Ford said Murdoch had problems with other employees and made vulgar and disrespectful comments towards him. He denied making any threats and stated that if he had said anything, he didn’t mean to cause offense. The investigation revealed some concerns about inappropriate sexually-oriented comments Ford had made to the summer student as well.
Teck was concerned that Ford wasn’t being honest and suspended him without pay pending further investigation. On June 30, 2011, Ford’s lawyer called Teck and asked for a third meeting during which Ford stated he was “very, very sorry,” and admitted he had an argument with Murdoch. He said he didn’t recall the argument “word for word” but acknowledged threatening to kill Murdoch and asked for forgiveness. He denied keying Murdoch’s car and downplayed the comments, referring to them as just jokes and not meant to offend.
The company felt this was too little, too late and Ford’s failure to take responsibility for his actions and dishonesty during the investigation damaged the employment relationship. On July 6, 2011, Ford was fired.
The union contested the dismissal, arguing Ford’s threat was an empty threat and Murdoch didn’t take it seriously. It characterized the argument between them as part of the workplace banter and neither man intended to follow through with their comments. It pointed to Ford’s long service with a good work record and the fact he apologized before he was dismissed. His failure to be forthcoming during the investigation was due to his feeling upset, confused and afraid of losing his job, said the union.
The arbitrator found Ford’s threat against Murdoch was a “heated response to a highly provocative threat” and was an empty one. Neither man took the other’s threat seriously and this was evident in that the rest of the shift went fine after things cooled down, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found Ford’s record of service was a mitigating factor as was the fact he made a formal apology acknowledging his misconduct, albeit late in the game after he had been suspended. Though likely motivated by a desire to save his job, the arbitrator believed Ford also regretted his actions.
