Employee said he would cause trouble in the workplace if he wasn't laid off
A British Columbia company fired an employee who threatened to cause problems if it didn’t lay him off because of safety concerns, not anti-union sentiments, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board has ruled.
Steven Chambers was a moulders’ helper for ESCO Canada, a steel producer in Port Coquitlam, B.C. Over his 15 years of service with ESCO, Chambers had no major disciplinary issues.
In November 2009, Chambers went on stress leave due to marital problems. He received short-term benefits from ESCO’s insurance provider but in mid-January 2010, his benefits were cut off because he stopped going to see his doctor for treatment and updates on his condition.
The cessation of his benefits led to financial problems and Chambers called ESCO on Jan. 18 to say he wasn’t ready to return to work. He said he needed money but didn’t want to see any more doctors. Chambers suggested ESCO could lay him off so he could claim employment insurance benefits, as it had done for employees in the past. He also said it would be a bad decision for him to come back but he wouldn’t quit. He then said if ESCO refused to lay him off he would be disruptive at the foundry.
Chambers’ call surprised ESCO, as it was expecting him to discuss his return to work. The company was concerned he would be a bad influence on other workers and any disruption would cause a dangerous situation in the safety sensitive workplace. However, it didn’t like that he was trying to force the company’s hand, since ESCO was not laying off employees at the time because there was no shortage of work.
On Jan. 22, ESCO told Chambers it was not going to lay him off. Chambers became angry and again said it was a bad idea and he would be disgruntled if he came back to work. He then asked how long it would be until he was fired and was worried his job was in danger.
On Jan. 25, Chambers called ESCO again and said he was ready to return to work on Feb. 1, but still said it was a bad decision and he didn’t have a medical certificate saying he was able to come back. The same day, he called the United Steel Workers about organizing the workers at the foundry. He later signed a union card and sent text messages to several employees informing them he was coming back to work and starting a union drive.
On Jan. 29, ESCO terminated Chambers’ employment, saying his threatening statements would not be tolerated and his attitude toward ESCO and his co-workers was concerning. The union claimed Chambers was fired for his union organizing efforts and his termination discouraged other workers from participating.
The board found ESCO wasn’t aware of the organizing efforts and it made the decision to fire him before he signed the union card and told others of his intentions. It was already concerned with his threats of being disruptive in a safety sensitive workplace and his attempts to force its hand in laying him off.
“There is a rational connection between the alleged misconduct and the discipline (termination) imposed by the employer,” said the board. “The threatening conduct alone gave the employer proper cause for discharge.”
