Ill-advised shortcut deserves shorter suspension: Arbitrator

An Ontario sawmill worker deserved a suspension for violating a lockout policy, but it should be reduced because the employer didn’t consistently enforce the policy, an arbitrator has ruled.

Ryam Forest Products operates a sawmill in Chapleau, Ont. It employed Richard Groulx as a tilt hoist operator. Groulx was hired in 2017.

On Jan. 20, 2021, Groulx was working at his station near the planer lockout area. The planer wasn’t running because it was shut down and locked out for its daily clean-up. He walked between the planer outfeed rollers and the outfield belt as a shortcut to his workstation, rather than taking stairs that went over the planer.

The area was a designated lockout area because as many as 100 pieces of lumber per minute could leave the planer on the outfeed belt when it was running, which could seriously injure anyone standing between the outfeed rollers.

The area between the outfeed rollers was behind a door with a sign stating: “Do not enter,  authorized personnel only” and a yellow gate with a similar sign — the gate was down when the planer was operating but it was up during the clean-up.

A superintendent spotted Groulx walking between the planer outfeed rollers and asked him why he was there. Groulx replied that the machine wasn’t running and he was walking through to get to his workstation. The superintendent reminded him that it was a lockout area because “95 per cent or more of the time the planer was stopped, someone was working on it, and it was locked out.” In addition, the daily clean-up shutdown was almost over and the planer would be starting up shortly.

Ryam had a lock-out policy for all employees stipulating that employees were responsible for knowing, understanding and following the lockout procedures and standard. This included “locking and testing the identified isolating devices to obtain zero energy prior to entry.” Groulx had completed a training course in May 2018 covering the policy.

Ryam investigated based on its Life Safety Protocol Investigation Roadmap (LSP), which specified that any violation of lockout and safety procedures was a “willful or reckless violation” that would result in a “minimum suspension of one week and a minimum one-day safety reset.” The LPS investigation determined that Groulx’s actions deserved a one-week suspension, effective Jan. 22.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing that it was too long. It claimed that when the gates were up, employees and supervisors frequently walked through the planer lockout area to avoid taking the stairs overhead.

The arbitrator noted that Groulx was supposed to take the stairs to go over the planer and he had no need to pass through the planer lockout area. The planer was “potentially dangerous machinery” and, even though it wasn’t running at the time, he “put himself in potential harm” because the planer would have soon been started for the day.

The arbitrator found that Groulx ignored “certain core requirements of the lockout policy” as well as clear signage about the danger of the area. This was deserving of discipline.

“The notion of any shortcut being taken through a designated lockout area is antithetical to health and safety generally and to the company’s lockout policy in particular,” said the arbitrator.

The arbitrator also found that while the LSP investigation roadmap outlined a one-week suspension as appropriate discipline, it didn’t “supplant a just cause analysis about culpability” or the concept of discipline for correction and rehabilitation. While Groulx knew he shouldn’t have walked through the lockout area, Ryam didn’t consistently enforce the lockout policy as other employees also took a shortcut through the area when the gates were up, the arbitrator said.

Ryam was ordered to substitute a three-day suspension instead of one week.