Having zero tolerance for misconduct can mean discipline for it rather than termination of employment: Arbitrator
A suspension was a more appropriate discipline than termination for a Saskatchewan employee’s failure to follow safety rules with plant machinery, an arbitrator has ruled.
Glen Kinequon, 52, worked as a beveler at the Regina plant for Evraz Canada, a steel company that produces plate and coil from recycled steel scrap. Kinequon, like all employees, was trained in proper procedures to lock out machinery.
On March 16, 2012, Kinequon was operating a beveler when his supervisor saw him shut off power and lift the lever to gain access to the machine. Before doing so, he didn’t follow proper safety procedure by inserting a lock though the switch arm to ensure the machine was locked in the off position. He opened the gate and stuck his arm through to feel a pipe he was beveling.
The supervisor immediately told Kinequon to come out of the machine and he had violated lock-out and safety procedures. He showed Kinequon the proper lockout procedure and Kinequon admitted he didn’t do it properly. He also admitted that as soon as he heard the supervisor call to him, he knew what the problem was. He acknowledged he was wrong and apologized several times.
Kinequon claimed that he had stopped the machine several times that day to check the beveling and had done a proper lockout each time, with the exception of when the supervisor observed him. In that instance, he said he had absentmindedly forgotten to lock out the machine.
Kinequon was called into a meeting with management and union representatives to discuss the incident. He again said he had absentmindedly forgotten to lock out the beveling machine, but it was the first time he had done so and he felt “really sorry.” Evraz suspended him pending investigation, which was standard practice for a lockout violation. Kinequon received a notice that he was on “indefinite suspension pending termination.”
Evraz’s final report on the incident considered it a near-miss incident. At a meeting to discuss the findings, Kineqon again acknowledged he was wrong and he had simply forgotten to lock out the machine.
Evraz considered the circumstances and the fact all employees had received information on the company’s core values, which included a commitment to the safest work environment possible and a statutory obligation to look after the health and safety of employees. This included a zero tolerance policy on violations of safety rules, of which lockout procedures and a guard against carelessness were included. It also considered Kinequon was a short-term employee and had been fully trained on proper procedures. Evraz decided to terminate Kinequon’s employment on March 26, 2012.
The union grieved the dismissal, arguing Kinequon’s misconduct wasn’t deliberate, he acknowledged his mistake and had no prior disciplinary record. It argued a two-week suspension would be more appropriate.
The arbitrator noted Evraz’s zero-tolerance policy didn’t necessarily mean automatic dismissal, as the policy stated discipline would be determined “based on individual circumstances and may include suspension and/ or termination of employment.” This allowed for a ranged of discipline depending on various factors. The arbitrator also noted it was unusual — except for very serious misconduct — for dismissal to be accepted discipline for a first-time violation of lockout and safety procedures.
The arbitrator found the lockout violation was serious, but it wasn’t intentional, nor did it impact Evraz’s operations. Though there was an element of risk, Kinequon showed remorse and acknowledgment, so the chance of a repeat was unlikely, said the arbitrator. Also, a lengthy suspension would serve as the message to others that Evraz wanted to achieve through the dismissal.
