Plant operator suspended without pay after serious safety violation
The dangerous vapour cloud Scott Grant caused at Interprovincial Cooperative in January 2012 continues to cast a shadow over his career.
At the time of the incident Grant was working at the company’s Winnipeg, Man., formulation plant as an operator.
Grant’s primary function as an operator is to formulate herbicides and pesticides from raw materials. On Jan. 25, 2012, he was formulating a herbicide commonly known as Maverick III. Maverick III is composed of dimethylamine 60 per cent solution (commonly called DMA), glyphosate acid (referred to as "technical") and large quantities of water.
The plant’s standard operating procedure for the formulation of Maverick III requires water be added to the mixer before the DMA or technical because it suppresses and contains the heat produced by the chemical reaction that occurs. Without water, the combination of the two chemicals creates a corrosive and toxic vapour cloud which can cause skin and eye burns, severe respiratory irritation and damage to the liver and lungs.
Wes Budakowski, the plant chemist, described DMA as the most dangerous chemical ingredient handled by the employer, saying, "a thimble full open in a room would cause us to evacuate." He also testified the heat produced by the chemical reaction — without the presence of large quantities of water — can reach a level at which an explosion may occur.
On the day in question, Grant failed to add 4,000 kgs of water into the mixer before combining DMA and Technical, creating a dangerous vapour cloud with the potential to cause severe personal injury and property damage. Grant was suspended for three days without pay.
Lack of water created lethal vapour cloud
The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) Local 341 filed a grievance of Grant’s behalf to seek a lesser penalty. The union asked the suspension be replaced by a letter of reprimand as Grant’s mistake was one of absentmindedness and not a result of horseplay or an irresponsible attitude.
Grant connected the flexible hose between the mixer and the water line, opening the valve to allow water to flow into the mixer. He did not, however, switch on the pump. Grant went to the lab while he thought the mixer was filling with water. When he returned Grant and a co-worker began combining the technical and DMA in the empty mixer.
Before one complete bag of technical had been dumped into the mixer a vapour cloud began to develop and the pronounced odour of DMA (similar to ammonia) was detected by both Grant and his coworker. Grant testified that he ran to the plant supervisor’s office to inform him of the situation.
Grant inspected the valves and realized the pump had not been switched on. He immediately switched the pump and water began to flow into the mixer, stabilizing the chemicals. Various train-bay doors and overhead doors were opening and within 20 minutes the smell of DMA had almost entirely disappeared.
‘Highly unusual and problematic’
Grant returned to work the next day and co-operated with the employer’s investigation. On Feb. 1, 2012, he received written notice of the three-day suspension as a result of his violation of one of the company’s "major rules" relating to safety. The company testified the severity of Grant’s discipline was a result of the high degree of risk of both personal injury and property damage which resulted from his error.
The employer argued the suspension was appropriate because in addition to forgetting to switch on the pump, Grant signed off on the production order saying water had been added when in fact it had not.
However, the union argued the suspension was a distinct departure from discipline handed down by the employer in the past and further argued Grant’s error was in violation of a "minor rule" rather than a "major rule." The union testified a written reprimand was a more appropriate penalty because Grant understood his error and took full responsibility for the incident, indicating corrective discipline was not required in this case.
Arbitrator Blair Graham disagreed with the union’s argument. He called Grant’s error a significant mistake, saying, "I do not accept the union’s arguments that the grievor’s error can be minimized by characterizing it as absentmindedness or mere forgetfulness… the volume of water involved is substantial and it takes time for water to be pumped into the mixer. Therefore missing that step is highly unusual and problematic."
Graham ruled Grant’s error constituted a major rule violation and agreed the suspension was appropriate given no explanation was offered, other than absentmindedness.
"I have concluded that a three day suspension without pay is objectively reasonable in the circumstances of this case," Graham ruled. "The error, though inadvertent, was basic and significant, and the extreme danger posed to the greivor, his coworkers and others as a result of his errors warrants a significant disciplinary response." The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Interprovincial Cooperative Limited and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 341. Blair Graham — Sole Arbitrator. David Negus for the Employer. Susan Dawes for the Union. Jan. 31, 2013.
