With a written warning on his record cautioning him against calling his white co-workers “Nazis,” a graveyard worker was fired after an unprovoked outburst where he called a colleague a “Polish Nazi” and a “dope head” and then told him to “f---off.”
The union grieved the termination, denied that any such remarks had been made and argued that the employer had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the allegations as required by the collective agreement.
Z.G. had been working as a cemetery labourer for 19 years when he was fired for intolerable behaviour and abusive and harassing language alleged to violate the Human Rights Code.
No Nazis
In May 2009, Z.G. was issued a written warning as a follow-up to discussions with his employer about a number of complaints from his co-workers. The letter put Z.G. on notice that any repeat of such behaviour would result in discipline up to and including discharge. One complaint detailed an incident in which it was alleged that Z.G. had held a hand-written note in front of a colleague’s face that said, “No Nazis permitted here.”
As the letter detailed, Z.G. had initially denied the allegation and when confronted with a photocopy of the note, he claimed that the handwriting was not his. When Z.G. was assured that the handwriting was his, he then claimed that his colleague had provoked him with racist taunts. Questioned further, Z.G. claimed that he and the colleague were merely fooling around and that the note had been written as a joke. The letter also referenced a further incident where Z.G. had alleged that racial bias was the reason for a colleague’s reluctance to work with him.
Alleged conspiracy
Six months later, Z.G. was fired after it was alleged that he had directed a number of epithets and slurs at a co-worker who he apparently believed was involved in a conspiracy to undermine Z.G. and take his place in the line for a full-time position.
The union argued that the investigation into the incident lacked rigour and that the onus was on the employer to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Z.G. had directed the “racist’ remarks against his co-workers as claimed.
The Arbitrator disagreed with the union’s characterization of the issue. The established, written record showed that Z.G. had called a (different) co-worker a Nazi and that he was capable of accusing fellow workers of being racists, then denying making such allegations and then saying it was all a joke.
Shop floor insults
Z.G.’s insults were different in kind than the commonplace, one-size-fits-all, generic, “shop-floor” insults. It is one thing to call a co-worker a “f------ idiot” — it is quite another to pair such language with any racial, religious or other potentially offensive adjectives, the employer said.
In this case, the language used by Z.G. was calculated to harm the personal dignity of his co-worker who was of Polish decent and who had struggled with substance abuse. The Arbitrator rejected the union’s attempt to minimize the offensiveness of the term “Nazi,” stating “there is nothing more offensive that you can call a Caucasian person than a Nazi.” Z.G.’s motivations were also a concern, the Arbitrator said. “If the perpetrator uses [such] expressions to attack a person because he sees that person as a professional threat to him; that is also particularly serious.”
“Race card”
Z.G. had a reputation among his co-workers as someone who would “play the race card” whenever he was in trouble, the Arbitrator said. His accusations of racism against fellow employees were not documented and his assertion that he had not documented these complaints to the union because the union representative was involved in a conspiracy against him were not credible, the Arbitrator said.
“The Grievor, I find, had a predilection for calling white workers ‘Nazis.’ I am also convinced that he used the term whenever he was upset with his fellow workers. Although the term Polish Nazi makes no sense historically, I find the Grievor was not talking historically, I find that he was speaking in the present tense and did call the complainant a Polish Nazi. It matters not if it makes political or historical sense. It is my finding that the complainant’s presence at the workplace on the morning in question, fed into the Grievor’s belief that a conspiracy was taking place and the complainant was going to be his nemesis in his attempts to secure a position with the employer that would be more beneficial to him.”
Z.G.’s references to his co-worker as a “dope head” were, “hurtful, disparaging and offensive in the extreme and an attack on a person suffering a handicap as described under the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the Arbitrator said.
False accusations unacceptable
Termination was warranted in the circumstances, the Arbitrator said, and there was no realistic prospect that Z.G. could rehabilitate his career with the employer in view of his lack of candour, his disrespect for the arbitration process and a lack of contrition.
“To accuse someone of being a racist knowing the allegation is false is quite unacceptable. To label someone capable of acting like a Nazi in everyday life is wholly unacceptable and quite intolerable and I so find. People who cry racism when they know no such allegation is factual must never [be] seen to be rewarded. The Human Rights Code outlaws this behaviour and I find that this particular grievor fell into this behaviour with continual ease and alacrity. I see absolutely no reason to exercise my jurisdiction to lessen the penalty.”
The grievance was dismissed.
