The company assessed discipline on a point system and the grievor had exceeded the maximum number of points after several infractions. The arbitrator found that the discipline had been properly assessed.
Disciplinary points were counted against a mill worker following two workplace incidents. When added to his existing record, the total of the new disciplinary points awarded for the two incidents exceeded the 100-point threshold for termination. The union grieved the discipline.
B.E. began working at a steel mill in 1977. He was close to being fired in 2005 for unspecified employment issues. Instead, he was transferred to the casting area in the mill’s Direct Strip Production Complex.
In 2008, B.E. was moved into the position of Hot Strip Mill Technician. The position has four different components: crane operator; coiler; furnace operator; and, finishing mill operator. Accreditation in each of the four roles comes with a wage increase. Accreditation for each level must be confirmed by a fellow member from the worker’s five-man crew and by the Front Line Supervisor.
Because of reported “attitude” problems, crew members were reluctant to train B.E. However, as pay increases were contingent on a workers’ accreditation in the various roles, B.E. agitated for the accreditation. The one crew member who had taken responsibility for B.E.’s training agreed to sign off on the condition that B.E. improve his performance on the “roll change.”
On July 15, 2009, B.E. was in the crane operator role during a roll change. His job in that instance was to act as a fail-safe observer and monitor the various movements of large machines to ensure they were moving properly in the event of a sensor malfunction.
Safety and production concerns
When the sensors malfunctioned, it was necessary to perform manual override corrections on the computer in order to safely orchestrate the mostly automated movements of the large machines — in this case the changing of the large roll that flattens the slabs of hot steel coming down the line. Safety and production continuity are concerns when performing a roll change.
When the process automatically stopped on July 15 because the sensors did not pick up that the delivery guides had retracted as required, it was B.E.’s job to confirm visually that the guides had retracted. He was then to manually affirm on the computer that the guides had retracted in order to restart the process.
In the event the process was restarted while the guides were still deployed, there would be significant damage to machinery and potential safety risks. On the other hand, to stop the line for longer than absolutely necessary risked shutting down the production line. Obviously, the call had to be correct and it had to be timely.
Inexplicably, E.B. was unable to make the call. E.B. was seen to go back and forth a number of times between the mill floor and the computer at the operating station. Apparently unsure of what he was doing and unable to hit the override button, a supervisor called in another crew member to perform the critical function. E.B. was assessed 30 demerit points for improper work and unsatisfactory work performance.
One year later, while operating one of the two large overhead cranes that run on rails above the workplace, E.B. crashed one crane into the other. While E.B. maintained that he did not expect the other crane to be where it was, the evidence showed that E.B. was operating his crane too fast and in a reckless manner. While no injuries resulted from the crash, the incident held the potential for catastrophic consequences. E.B. was awarded 50 demerit points.
The Arbitrator upheld the discipline awarded for both incidents.
The union said standard procedures required that workers were not to push the override button unless they were sure about the call. E.B. was unsure about whether or not the guides had retracted and therefore did not make the call. In this case, the union said, he should not be disciplined for following procedures.
Positive obligation
The Arbitrator disagreed. It was E.B.’s job to make the call. When he failed to make the call, he failed to complete a critical task and that was the basis for the discipline.
“In my view, what occurred on that date is that the Grievor was assigned a basic and regular task associated with his job as crane operator. This task required him to make a decision about whether to push the button or not and he failed to make a decision in that respect with no reasonable explanation. His failure to perform it without any reasonable explanation is misconduct warranting discipline.”
Crashing the crane was a very serious matter, the Arbitrator said.
“I do not accept the Union’s suggestion that the fact that the Grievor did not intend to hit the other crane is a mitigating factor. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that ensures the safety of themselves and their coworkers. This is a positive obligation, going beyond just not intentionally harming others. In the present case, the Grievor, in not bothering to do the simple act of watching the path of his crane, acted with negligence demonstrating an indifference to the safety of his coworkers.”
It was appropriate to consider whether or not discharge was warranted when awarding points that would take a worker over the 100-point threshold.
In this case, discharge was appropriate. The Arbitrator acknowledged E.B.’s many years of service but that consideration did not outweigh the numerous aggravating factors. In particular, his lack of candour and unwillingness to acknowledge his wrongdoing left no basis to believe that he would behave differently in the future.
The grievances were dismissed.
