The grievor was suspended after a forklift accident injured another worker. Despite several factors that weighed in the grievor's favour, the arbitrator found that an experienced driver should have been been operating more safety than the grievor was.
A forklift operator was handed a five-day suspension after he was found to be at fault in a workplace accident.
N.M. was hired at a wire manufacturing plant in 1983. He had 10 years’ experience operating a forklift in his position as Materials Handler when he was suspended in 2011 following a workplace accident.
N.M. received regular forklift training and recertification as required. He was regarded as a skilled operator. Previous discipline did not factor into the suspension.
On Aug. 23, 2011, N.M. was transporting two stacks of 30-inch wooden reels from the yard into the plant. While the stacks were loaded properly according to plant protocols, N.M.’s forward vision was obstructed and he proceeded into the plant relying on his peripheral vision.
About 40 feet inside the plant, N.M. encountered another worker who suddenly backed out into the main aisle while pulling a hand-operated lift truck.
Careless operation
N.M. stopped quickly and successfully avoided a collision. However, the load of reels came loose and hit the worker. She sustained a number of injuries and was off work for seven weeks.
N.M. was issued a reprimand for careless operation of a vehicle and failure to maintain control of his load. He was suspended for five days.
The union grieved.
The employer said that the discipline was warranted. N.M. violated general plant safety rules. He also ignored the procedures outlined in a specific Forklift Safety Memorandum that addressed the need to drive in reverse or use a spotter when hauling a load that obstructs the operator’s vision. He was also in violation of requirements in the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
N.M.’s explanation that the designated spot for turning around just inside the threshold was obstructed was not sufficient, the employer said. He admitted in any case that he habitually used a spot to turn around that was beyond where the accident occurred. His argument that the other worker also bore some of the responsibility for suddenly backing into the main aisle could not succeed and would not absolve him of responsibility, the employer said.
Mitigating factors
The union said that driving with partially obstructed vision is part of a forklift operator’s job. N.M. was not exceeding the speed limit and his load was secured according to established procedure. The plant was congested, the turn around area was obstructed and the worker in question backed into N.M.’s path without warning. The union said that N.M. should not be held responsible for the accident. Alternatively, the union said, mitigating factors such as his 28 years of service, his co-operation with the investigation and his remorse called for a reduction in the suspension.
The Arbitrator disagreed.
“[I] cannot accept that it was within the bounds of safe conduct for the grievor to advance in a forward driving direction, with his view obstructed, as far down the main aisle as he did on that day. It is immaterial, in my view, whether the grievor was intending to reverse when the accident occurred, whether [the victim] backed up suddenly, or whether the accident occurred 25 feet, as estimated by the grievor, or 40 feet, as estimated [by the investigator], from the door. The salient fact is that there was an area to the left of the loading dock, only a few feet inside the door, where a turn could have been executed by the grievor in order to proceed in reverse due to his vision obstructing load, in accordance with what he acknowledged were the established safety rules for the situation.”
The Arbitrator noted that N.M. was an experienced operator and a long-term employee who was acknowledged to be an excellent and normally safety-conscious worker.
However, a serious incident had occurred and a worker was injured. As a forklift operator, N.M. was responsible for operating the machine in accordance with all safety rules. He failed to do so on Aug. 23 and discipline was warranted.
Indeed, the Arbitrator considered the discipline to be a measured and moderate disciplinary response, which balanced the relevant mitigating factors against the seriousness of the safety breach.
The grievance was dismissed.
Mark Rogers is a writer and editor who specializes in labour relations and occupational health and safety.
