Steward and supervisor argued after employee's disciplinary meeting
This instalment of You Make the Call features a union representative who said an altercation with his supervisor happened during the course of his union duties.
Dairy company William Nielson Ltd. was concerned with the performances of two Ontario employees. When the employees were involved in an incident with some equipment in September 2007, Nielson conducted an investigation that resulted in written reprimands issued on Sept. 25, 2007. The reprimands were given to the employees at a meeting that included their union steward and two supervisors.
The union steward asked for evidence to determine whether the incident was caused by an equipment malfunction or human error but Nielson said the information wasn’t readily available, though it could be provided later. The union steward was upset no proof of error was provided before the discipline was given and he said the union would file grievances.
After the meeting, the union steward went to another room to speak with one of the disciplined employees. A short while later, one of the supervisors at the meeting, who was also the union steward’s supervisor, came into the room and was surprised to find the union steward still there. When he tried to shake hands with the steward, the steward refused and said it wasn’t appropriate after what took place at the meeting. The supervisor attempted to shake the other employee’s hand, but the steward pushed the supervisor’s arm away and stepped between them.
The supervisor took exception and soon the two men were shouting at each other. They stood close to each other and exchanged heated insults. The supervisor shook his finger at the union steward and the steward grabbed the finger and moved it. The supervisor claimed later he pointed his finger at chest level from some distance away but the steward said it was in his face and he felt his personal space was being invaded.
After some further disparaging comments were exchanged, the supervisor sent the union steward home. Nielson investigated the altercation and determined the steward’s conduct was “belligerent, threatening and completely inappropriate,” particularly his coming into physical contact with a supervisor. The union steward was suspended for two and one-half days without pay.
The steward grieved the suspension, claiming the supervisor provoked the incident and the steward was acting in his capacity has a union official and standing up for the disciplined employee.
You Make the Call
Was the suspension justified?
OR
Did the union steward deserve more leeway in his role representing the disciplined employee?
If you said the steward’s actions were beyond the scope of his union duties and the suspension was justified, you’re right. The board found the steward’s actions were not part of his duties as a union steward and his attempt to prevent the supervisor from shaking hands with the worker was unnecessary. It also found he could have stepped back and tried to “de-escalate” the situation when the supervisor pointed his finger rather than taking the bait. The steward himself admitted to the board his actions were unprofessional.
However, the supervisor also played a role in the incident, the board said, and Nielson should not have treated the situation like the steward was completely responsible when meting out discipline. As a result, though the board upheld the suspension, it reduced it by half to one and one-quarter days. Nielson was ordered to compensate the steward for lost wages from the original suspension.
