History of problems with authority couldn't be justification because no previous warnings were issued
An Ontario-based employer who fired an employee for refusing work and disrupting the workplace should have been more lenient, an adjudicator has ruled.
David Fraser was hired as a mechanic by Toronto-based trucking company OK Transportation on July 18, 2005. His duties included maintenance of the company’s fleet of trucks.
It soon became evident to the company that Fraser had attitude problems towards management and co-workers. On a performance review in late 2007, Fraser’s manager commented on his poor attitude, but Fraser refused to sign it and uttered profanities. When Fraser was given a copy of the company’s policies and procedures, he also refused to sign it, claiming there were legal mistakes in them. He also refused to attend an employee safety meeting.
Despite these incidents and Fraser’s apparent contempt for authority, management didn’t give him any warnings. The company’s employee handbook spelled out the steps of its disciplinary process that verbal and written warnings and ultimately a suspension. However, management usually opted to avoid a confrontation with him.
On Jan. 10, 2008, Fraser refused an assignment to make modifications on a tractor unit, claiming it wasn’t safe and violated the law and the manufacturer’s warranty. Rather than getting into an argument, the supervisor gave Fraser other work and another mechanic did it.
The next day the manager asked Fraser why he refused to do the work. Fraser said he had a right to refuse because he was concerned about safety and legal issues. The conversation became heated and soon Fraser began shouting. The manager turned away but Fraser followed him closely, yelling in his face. Other employees were concerned Fraser was getting out of control and the situation would escalate into a physical confrontation. Eventually, Fraser was asked to leave and he complied.
OK Transportation decided Fraser’s conduct and the disruption to the workplace were serious enough to warrant dismissal, particularly in light of his long-standing attitude issues.
The adjudicator found Fraser’s reasoning for refusing the work was dubious, since he didn’t provide any evidence of his claims and didn’t file any safety complaints. The adjudicator agreed Fraser’s behaviour warranted discipline, but found termination was too much.
The adjudicator found OK Transportation couldn’t consider the incident a culminating one because it failed to follow its own discipline policy by giving him warnings for the previous incidents. This being the first instance of discipline, it wasn’t sufficient for dismissal, said the adjudicator.
