Miner fired for insubordination argued he wasn’t hired or trained to do more dangerous drilling work
A Saskatchewan miner was not insubordinate when he refused a supervisor’s order to do a job he wasn’t hired for and didn’t want to do, the Saskatchewan Provincial Court has ruled.
Donald Duguay, 45, was a miner hired by Mudjatik Thyssen Mining Joint Venture, a mining contractor in northern Saskatchewan, in November 2007. When he applied, Duguay indicated he had experience and skills in blasting and drilling at various mine sites. During his interview, Mudjatik asked Duguay if he could operate a jackleg and stopper drill, a type of pneumatic drill that drills holes for support systems in the roof of underground mines. Duguay had no training on this type of drill and said he didn’t want to do that type of work, as it is the most dangerous in underground mines.
Duguay was hired as an operator of a Cubex drill, a drill with which he had experience and training, at Rabbit Lake Mine. He signed an employment agreement that stipulated he would undertake whatever tasks Mudjatik assigned him within the limits of his skill and safe working conditions, any training needed for his work, and he would do his job as required. Duguay accepted the agreement, believing the requirements applied within the scope of his position as a Cubex drill operator.
In his record of training history, Duguay indicated he had knowledge of rock bolting, the type of work done with a jackleg drill, but no formal training. Most miners had a general knowledge of rock bolting.
First warning for insubordination
On Oct. 6, 2008, Duguay and another miner were loading explosives into holes for excavations. Duguay had a disagreement with his supervisor over whether there should be a person guarding the blasting site. Legislation required “effective guarding of entrances to the blasting site” and Duguay felt only a fence was required. However, the supervisor said there needed to be a person present in accordance with Mudjatik policy. Duguay insisted he was right, saying no-one had raised the issue with him before in 11 months with the company.
Duguay was asked to sign a warning, the first step in a four-step disciplinary process — the fourth step was dismissal — but refused. The supervisor told Duguay the warning would be overlooked but said if Duguay was insubordinate again, he would be fired.
Four weeks later, on Nov. 1, 2008, Duguay was operating a front-end loader carrying electricians over a flooded section of the mine. The scoop accidentally rolled into the water, dumping the electricians and a pump, damaging company property and endangering the electricians. Duguay accepted responsibility and signed a step two warning.
Miner refused to do job he wasn’t hired to do
The day after the front-end loader accident, Duguay’s supervisor asked him to take jackleg and stopper training. Duguay didn’t feel this was part of his job and refused. He was then sent to work rock bolting with another miner who could operate the jackleg drill and mostly just passed along equipment.
Halfway through the shift, the supervisor came by and said Duguay needed to be trained as a bolter but Duguay again refused, saying he was a Cubex driller. The supervisor became angry and fired Duguay, to which Duguay replied, “fine.”
Duguay was shocked and believed he had been set up to be fired. He sued Mudjatik for wrongful dismissal. Mudjatik argued Duguay effectively resigned by refusing to follow direct orders from his supervisor, which constituted insubordination and a step four warning.
The court first determined Duguay did not resign and response of “fine” to his supervisor’s assertion he was fired was not a formal act of quitting.
The court agreed Duguay’s refusal to place a guard at the blast site was a clear defiance of a direct order, regardless of his past practice, and constituted insubordination. However, his refusal to take rock bolting training and operate a jackleg drill was a different story. Duguay was hired to be a Cubex drill operator and associated duties. Mudjatik didn’t make it clear upon hiring him that he would be expected to perform other duties and it should have renegotiated his employment terms and provided opportunity for training instead of thrusting him into a new job, said the court. This was particularly important considering the rock bolting duties were more dangerous.
Since the incident didn’t amount to insubordination, the court found the move from a step two warning on Nov. 1 to termination was an overreaction.
“(Duguay) was not warned that if he did not agree to rock bolt he would be terminated,” said the court. “Given that he was hired as a Cubex driller, he ought to have been provided a clear indication that he would be expected to learn and perform those duties and failure to comply would result in termination.”
