60-day suspension for insubordination, swearing reduced to 20 days
A 60-day suspension for insubordinate and threatening behaviour for a British Columbia worker with a previously clean record 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. 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.
Watt called a supervisor to tell him what happened and he refused to do any further work around that crane operator. 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 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, 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.” The supervisor told him again to calm down and looked 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.
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 said some more profanity 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. Watt apologized to his supervisor and acknowledged his language and conduct were unacceptable.
Worker threatened shutdown
The supervisor reported the situation to the area coordinator, 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 suspended Watt indefinitely.
Watt was called in for an investigatory meeting on Nov. 13 to discuss the incidents, and he acknowledged his conduct along with his threats to refuse work and call WorkSafeBC were inappropriate but borne out of frustration. He again apologized and said he would improve his approach.
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 mainly 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.
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.
Watt apologized to his supervisor, but he didn’t do so until after the third incident and didn’t apologize to the second supervisor.
Moore also found Watt’s insubordinate conduct was compounded by his threats to refuse work and call WorkSafeBC “squarely impacted on the supervisors’ roles and obligations.”
Though no physical threat was made, the threat to halt production 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,” said Moore.
“Although I also accept that (Watt’s) conduct on these days was a product of frustration, it is within the context of safety that I consider his conduct with respect to the (work refusal) to be serious).”
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:
• RIO Tinto Alcan Inc. Kitimat Works and Unifor, Local 2301 (Watt), Re, 2016 CarswellBC 2570 (B.C. Arb.).
