Employee didn't follow carefully outlined shut-down process before adjusting machine
An Ontario worker’s lengthy disciplinary record and serious safety violation were sufficient to give his employer cause to fire him, the Ontario Arbitration Board has ruled.
Jason Fabbro was a cut-off machine operator for Tenaris Algoma Tubes, a manufacturer of seamless pipe in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. The machine would cut pipes guided by arms on the machine as they moved on a conveyor belt. This process and many others in the plant involved many hazards that could cause injury or death for workers, so safety was important to the company.
Tenaris gave employees safety training when they were hired as well as regular refreshers. They also received a package that included job safety information that all were required to read and sign. Fabbro signed his forms, indicating he had read the material.
One of the most important safety procedures for machine operators was the lockout if any adjustment or other work needed to be done to the machines or conveyor belt. The lockout prevented the movement of equipment or energy and involved de-energizing all power sources, testing to ensure power is off and placing a safety lock on various parts. Employees were trained and reminded of the proper lockout procedure and instructions were always available. Training guides made it clear a lockout violation would lead to suspension and further discipline up to and including dismissal.
On Feb. 4, 2009, Fabbro stopped his machine to adjust a pipe being cut. He shut off two air valves and tested them but didn’t initiate a full lockout before going around to the conveyer belt. His supervisor saw what he was doing and told him to get out of the area and perform a full lockout before proceeding. The supervisor filed a report on Fabbro’s safety violation and informed Fabbro. Fabbro said he knew he should have locked out and apologized.
Tenaris reviewed the report and took the safety violation very seriously. It also considered that in seven years of memployment with the company, Fabbro had been suspended four times — ranging in length from one day to two and one-half months — and had received written warnings for absenteeism, inappropriate behavior and smoking in the workplace. Tenaris determined further attempts to correct his behavior would be fruitless so it terminated Fabbro.
The board found Fabbro was aware of the necessity of performing a lockout and had received ample training. Failing to perform one was a very serious safety violation that put not only himself but co-workers at risk. By itself, the violation would warrant suspension, but combined with his disciplinary record, discharge was appropriate, said the board.
“The fact Fabbro seldom repeated the same offence is not particularly significant in this case. What is of concern is that he continues to commit offences after receiving corrective discipline… This raises a question about whether he appreciates the seriousness of his misconduct and whether he would refrain from continuing to contravene the employer’s rules, if reinstated,” said the board.
The arbitrator upheld Fabbro’s dismissal. See Tenaris Algoma Tubes Inc. v. U.S.W.A., Local 9548, 2009 CarswellOnt 6076 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
