Worker's extreme reaction to co-worker jumping into workspace over-the-top but understandable: Arbitrator
An Ontario arbitrator has reinstated a worker who was fired for hitting a co-worker during a workplace altercation.
Sonia Gatto worked on the assembly line for Kruger, a manufacturer of corrugated cardboard boxes in Brampton, Ont. Gatto operated a transfer car that moved product from one machine to another on the assembly line. She was considered a good worker without any disciplinary record in seven-and-one-half years with Kruger.
On Oct. 17, 2013, the assembly line was getting backed up and was in danger of being stopped. An electrician who was new to the company, Yan Zhu, was trying to repair another transfer car, but the car’s manual – normally kept in the control panel — was missing. Zhu needed to understand the electrical circuit diagram of the car, so he went looking for a manual. Another car was missing its manual, so Zhu asked Gatto if he could get into the control panel of her transfer car.
Gatto assumed Zhu wanted to do maintenance, so she refused because the assembly line was backing up and she needed to get to work. Zhu still couldn’t find a manual, nor could he get hold of the leadhand to give authorization for Gatto to shut down her car.
Gatto asked her supervisor whether she should shut down her car to let Zhu into the control panel but, without knowing why, the supervisor wouldn’t authorize it.
Zhu was growing concerned that his assignment was taking too long because he couldn’t find a manual. He decided to take matters into his own hands.
As Gatto went by, Zhu jumped into her car, into the five-foot by three-feet operator's space. He brushed against Gatto and startled her, particularly since he had a screwdriver in his hand. Gatto spun around, grabbed Zhu’s shirt and shook him roughly. She also squeezed his arm and screamed at him to get out.
Zhu put up his arms to protect himself and Gatto swatted his arm aside, yelling and swearing at him. She grabbed Zhu’s walkie-talkie with the intention of calling the supervisor, but in the process stretched its cord and wrapped it around his neck. By trying to use the walkie-talkie, Gatto ended up throttling Zhu with the cord.
Zhu was able to unwrap the cord from his neck and before getting out of the car. The company collected statements from Zhu and witnesses and interviewed Gatto, who said she was acting in self-defence and would do it again in the same circumstances. She was sent home for the rest of the day. Zhu was not reprimanded.
The next day, Kruger terminated Gatto’s employment for acting “in a violent behaviour and causing harm” to a co-worker. Because Gatto had received training in the company’s workplace violence and health and safety policies, the company felt she should have known her conduct was unacceptable and it took its obligation to maintain a workplace free of violence seriously.
Following her termination, Gallo apologized to Zhu. She also apologized at her grievance hearing, saying she had panicked and didn’t intend to hurt Zhu. She retracted the statement she made in her interview, saying she wouldn’t act the same way again.
The arbitrator found Gatto “considerably over-reacted to the situation,” but she shouldn’t bear full responsibility for what happened. Both Gallo and Zhu felt under the gun in their work, leading them to act without consideration for the other. Zhu bore responsibility for acting rashly, and a strong reaction from Gatto should have been expected, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also found the supervisor should have taken more interest and tried to resolve the situation, rather than going along with Gatto’s preferred outcome. Had either Gatto or the supervisor found out what Zhu really needed, the incident could have been avoided.
However, the arbitrator found Gatto’s conduct was over the top and was the most serious infraction of anyone.
“(Gatto) had no right to assault Mr. Zhu, alarmed though she was by his sudden appearance beside her,” said the arbitrator. “Her conduct was a serious assault on a fellow employee for which (she) ought to have been severely disciplined.”
Though Gatto’s misconduct was serious, the arbitrator found she was honest and remorseful about it and it wasn’t premeditated. The arbitrator found it was “a single, sudden, surprising moment when she was physically confronted in her confined workspace." Gatto didn’t have any prior incidents of violence or aggression and her remorse afterwards made it unlikely it would happen again, said the arbitrator.
Kruger was ordered to reinstate Gatto with a three-month suspension. Because Kruger’s apology came after her termination, this information wasn’t available at the time of termination, so Kruger wasn’t required to compensate Gatto for lost pay beyond the three-month suspension. See Kruger Inc. and Unifor, Local 1646 (Gatto), Re, 2014 CarswellOnt 15713 (Ont. Arb.).
