Aerospace employee fired for concealing errors in production of expensive components deserved another chance: Arbitrator
A British Columbia employee’s termination for repeated mistakes in manufacturing expensive equipment has been rescinded by the B.C. Arbitration Board.
Roman Niedbalski, 49, worked as a machinist for Asco Aerospace Canada, an aircraft components manufacturer in Delta, B.C., for 22 years. Asco was certified to have parts go directly to aircraft builders after its own inspection, without further inspection. As a result, the company had strict quality control measures in place. If there was an error in the production of a part, the machinist was required to inform Asco inspection or his team leader. Any problems were to be brought to the foreman immediately so a decision could be made to repair or inspect the part.
In performance reviews in 2009 and 2011, Niedbalski received good overall ratings, with most of his individual skills rated as good with a few satisfactory.
Asco became concerned that productivity was being effected by employees who weren’t following break schedules, and using Blackberrys at work. The company sent out a memo to employees that outlined new “house rules,” implemented on Dec. 1, 2010, that emphasized the need to focus on production. The house rules included instructions to report quality issues to supervisors.
Series of production errors
On July 14, 2011, Niedbalski loaded an incorrect program into his machine that damaged the component he was making beyond repair. He didn’t follow the verification process and started the next part without checking the first part, which was submitted to quality control. Both parts had to be scrapped, costing Asco $1,600 for each one. Niedbalski was issued a written warning stating that such errors couldn’t be tolerated and verification was very important.
On Oct. 5, 2011, a part for the F-35 military jet was identified as having a false cut. The error was attributed to Niedbalski and he was reported for failing to tag it. After the error, Niedbalski had continued his work and tried to resolve it without telling anyone. He mentioned it to the shift operator but said it would be “OK to go,” and failed to tell his foreman. It was determined the extent of the damage could only have happened if Niedbalski had been away from the machine while it was running. Niedbalski was given another written warning.
On Oct. 31, 2011, Niedbalski asked his foreman to look at his setup, and the foreman noticed debris on the machine. He told Niedbalski to clean it up and advised that it would have created a serious problem and such a lack of performance could not be tolerated. The next day, Asco terminated Niedbalski’s employment for poor work quality and a lack of responsibility, with the Oct. 5 failure to report an error as the main factor in the termination. The company felt it had lost all trust in him to do his job.
Niedbalski claimed he wasn’t given a chance to explain his side of things at the termination meeting. He said he wasn’t aware he had to talk to the supervisor for “every little issue” if he spoke to his partner. He admitted he made mistakes sometimes but his scrap ration was below the industry standard. The union also pointed out that other similar incidents by employees resulted in warnings and a one-day suspension. Asco countered with the argument that Niedbalski’s position was one of the most responsible in production, and his mistakes, which happened over a short period of time, cost the company thousands of dollars. His attempts to downplay his errors showed his refusal to take responsibility, said Asco, though he was aware of the “house rules.”
Consistent progressive discipline needed: Arbitrator
The arbitrator found that there was a history of “limited discipline for employee discrepancies.” Other employees had received lesser discipline for similar incidents, though Asco claimed Niedbalski’s attempts to cover up his errors made his misconduct more serious. In addition, he wasn’t given an opportunity to explain his actions.
“A critical component of the corrective discipline approach is that the employee is told of the corrected expectation and is advised of the consequence of not correcting the behaviour or work performance,” said the arbitrator. “Without such knowledge an employer is not free to impose the ultimate employment penalty except for certain quite serious employment offences.”
The arbitrator also found that Niedbalski didn’t completely hide his discrepancies, as he told his partner in most cases. Given that the primary reason for his termination was hiding discrepancies, that fact should lessen the discipline since it cast doubt that he fully intended to conceal, said the arbitrator.
