60-day suspension for insubordination and inappropriate conduct by worker reduced to 20 days in light of first offence
A 60-day suspension for insubordinate and threatening behaviour for a British Columbia worker with no previous record of discipline was too harsh, an arbitrator has ruled.
Montreal-based aluminum mining and production company Rio Tinto Alcan hired Geoffrey Watt to be an equipment operator at its Kitimat, B.C., works in 2005. In 2009, Watt became a senior cell operator in pot lines, where he maintained pots and performed other duties including process corrections. Watt became a union safety representative in 2008 and was chief area representative for the reduction department a year later. In 2013, he became co-chair of the plant’s safety committee.
On Oct. 28, 2013, Watt was part of a crew doing crust breaking when he saw a crane operator in a crane’s basket waiting for them to pass. When he came back a short time later, the crane operator was planting a stud. Watt was concerned because doing this during crust breaking could result in an explosion, so he moved away to “get out of the line of fire.”
Worker reacted with profanity
Watt called a supervisor to tell him what happened and said he refused to do any further work around that crane operator. He was angry and used profanity during the conversation. Later, Watt testified he wasn’t sure exactly what he said, but acknowledged that he used the phrase “This is f---ing bulls—t” often in front of supervisor.
The supervisor calmed Watt down and brought a work refusal form to the office. Watt said he wanted to fill out the form so it wouldn’t become a disciplinary issue for the crane operator. Since Watt wasn’t actually refusing to do work, the supervisor didn’t complete the form.
The next day, Watt called the supervisor again, this time complaining about the pot room roof building lights that hadn’t been fixed. He claimed he had asked another supervisor to fix them before he returned from vacation or he would call WorkSafeBC — the previous day had been his first day back — but this hadn’t been done. According to Watt’s supervisor, Watt said, “this is f---ing bulls—t and I want something done by Monday or I rope this f---ing place off, and no one I mean no one is going in.” Watt used some more profanity and said “this place is going to hell.”
The supervisor told him again to calm down and said he would look into the situation. The lights were fixed later that day.
The day after that — Oct. 30 — Watt was undertaking a process that involved feeding a pot with ore and using a pole to bring the pot’s temperature down. He saw a number of crews in the area, so he advised a supervisor. Soon after, he heard the supervisor on the radio advising crews to leave the building. Assuming the issue was resolved, he continued his work.
Soon after, Watt was inserting a pole in a pot when a blast of dust came from behind the pot and hit him on his side and in his protective face mask. He originally thought it was from a pot lining crew but it turned out to be a contractor.
Watt contacted the supervisor and said he wanted to fill out a work refusal form and didn’t want to work that day. When his own supervisor arrived, Watt told him not to bother speaking to the pot lining crew because he was filling out a work refusal form. He used some more profanity as he spoke to them and said he had had enough and was going to call WorkSafeBC.
The other supervisor told Watt his language and tone were unacceptable and it was the last time he would speak to him about it. A little while later, Watt apologized and acknowledged his language and conduct were unacceptable.
Frustrated worker threatened to stop production for safety process
The supervisor reported the situation to the area co-ordinator, who was concerned about Watt’s comments the previous day that he would rope off the pot room and stop working, which could seriously harm production as once shut down, it would be difficult to restart. He called Watt into his office, along with a shop steward, and suspended Watt indefinitely.
Watt was called in for an investigative meeting on Nov. 13 to discuss the incidents, and Watt acknowledged his conduct and threats to refuse work and call WorkSafeBC were inappropriate but borne out of frustration. He was aware of the difficulties that would come with shutting down the pot lines. He again apologized and said he would improve his approach in the future.
On Nov. 20, the company suspended Watt for 60 days for unacceptable use of safety processes and insubordinate language and tone to his supervisors. While the company acknowledged the suspension was a lot for a first offence, it considered Watt’s deliberate and aggressive behaviour serious misconduct that was carried out over three days.
Unifor grieved the suspension, arguing the suspension was too harsh for a long-term employee’s first offence, particularly given Watt's legitimate safety concerns.
Arbitrator Wayne Moore found Watt’s “loud, profane and aggressive” conduct directed at his supervisors was “clearly insubordinate” and deserving of discipline, particularly considering Watt continued with it over three days after having a chance to cool down." Though Watt apologized to his supervisor, he didn’t do so until after the third incident and didn’t apologize to anyone else.
Arbitrator Moore also found Watt’s insubordinate conduct was compounded by his threats to refuse work and call WorkSafeBC, which, though not necessarily personal to the supervisors, “squarely impacted on the supervisors’ roles and obligations.” Though no physical threat was made, the threat to halt production — upon which Watt had no intention to follow through — had potential serious consequences to the business, said Moore.
“While I accept that unions and their representatives have an important role in asserting and protecting their members’ legitimate interests in a safe workplace, the issue of safety is far too important to be undermined by what I consider to be the ‘gaming’ of safety processes,” Moore said. “Although I also accept that (Watt’s) conduct on these days was in no small part a product of frustration, it is within the context of the importance of safety that I consider his conduct with respect to the (work refusal) to be serious).”
Despite the seriousness of Watt’s misconduct, arbitrator Moore placed significant importance on his eight years of service with a clean record. Though he understood the company’s concerns about Watt’s behaviour, Moore determined that a 20-day suspension would be sufficient to make Watt appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct and — with such a lengthy suspension on his record — to repeat it would put his job at risk.
For more information see:
