The grievor was terminated for failing to lock out the equipment on which he was working. At the hearing, it became apparent that neither was there any evidence he had begun working on the machine, nor had the policy under which he was terminated been properly put in place. He was reinstated.
An industrial mechanic was fired after the employer said that he failed to properly lock out a machine before beginning work on it.
R.W. was a certified, Red Seal industrial mechanic and millwright. R.W. worked at a commercial bakery. He had five years’ seniority when he was fired on March 3, 2011.
R.W. worked the night shift on March 2, 2011. At about 5:30 a.m., he punched in a work order to perform some scheduled preventative maintenance on the “wire-cut” machine attached to oven No. 4. The production schedule showed that oven No. 4 was not operating for that shift.
R.W. loaded tools, lubricants and rags onto a cart and proceeded to the machine. When he reached the machine he performed a brief inspection to ensure that the guards were in place and that the doors were closed. According to his standard practice, it was his intention to turn the machine on first to listen for any obvious malfunctions before turning it off, locking it out and then performing any work or maintenance.
While crouching beside the machine to ensure that the guards were in place before turning it on, oven No. 4 started. Startled, R.W. stood up and saw the shift manager. The manager informed R.W. that the schedule had been changed.
With oven No. 4 in operation, the maintenance project was no longer possible. R.W. returned to the shop and punched out the work order 12 minutes after punching it in.
Later in the shift, the maintenance supervisor told R.W. he had been seen working on a machine that was not locked out. R.W. was told he was to be disciplined.
Lock-out failure a serious offence
The next day, R.W. was fired. The union grieved.
Before the Arbitrator, the employer said that failure to lock out a machine was a very serious offence and that termination was warranted. That R.W. would commit such an error brought his competence as a mechanic into question. He presented a safety risk to himself and to other workers, the employer said.
The employer dismissed R.W.’s assertion that he was only performing a preliminary inspection. In any event, the employer said, procedures required R.W. to fill out the lock-out log book before he left the shop. R.W. didn’t do that.
There were no grounds for discipline whatsoever, the union said. R.W. was not working on the machine. No one saw him working on the machine. R.W. had not been informed of any policy requiring him to fill out a lock-out log book and no such policy was in place on March 2. The onus of proof was on the employer to show that it had just cause to terminate R.W. The employer had not met that obligation, the union said.
The Arbitrator agreed.
The employer could not clearly explain what its lock-out procedure was on March 2. It prepared a report in response to the incident on that date but it could not establish that all the policy elements were in place previous to that date as it had alleged.
No witnesses
The employer’s only witness was not really a witness at all as he could not testify he actually saw R.W. working on the machine. The manager’s story was vague: he saw R.W. putting some screws onto a cart before leaving the scene. The manager assumed the screws were from a machine guard that he imagined R.W. had removed.
That wasn’t good enough.
“[T]he critical shortcoming in the Employer’s case is that it could not prove that the Grievor was working on the machine. None of the Employer’s witnesses, including [the shift manager], could testify that the Grievor was working on the machine.”
The Arbitrator accepted R.W.’s account that he had been conducting a visual inspection of the machine to ensure that the guards were in place before turning it on in order to listen to it.
The Arbitrator rejected the employer’s claim that R.W. had violated policy by failing to fill out a lock-out log book before proceeding to work on the machine. The employer could provide no evidence to support the existence of any such policy or procedure.
“[I] do not find that the Grievor engaged in any conduct on March 2, 2011 that warrants any discipline,” the Arbitrator said.
The employer was ordered to reinstate R.W. with full seniority and compensation for lost wages and benefits.
