Proffering a variety of explanations for his actions, a warehouse worker grieved the discipline imposed on him for alleged safety infractions.
Employed as a warehouse worker in a facility that packs and ships orders for large grocery retailers, F.T.’s job was to assemble orders for individual retail stores. Using a forklift or other machinery, F.T. would pick requested merchandise from various stacks and then place it on a pallet in a staging area. Completed pallets were wrapped for stability and then moved to a loading dock for shipping.
In the first of a series of incidents that led to discipline, F.T. was observed to leave the scene on his forklift after his attempt to “pick” some onions compromised the entire pallet, which was about 25 feet above the ground. Some boxes hit the floor and some remained loose about 25 feet above ground level.
Left the scene
Where standard operating procedures in those circumstances require the operator to block off access to the area with his/her forklift and then contact management, F.T. apparently left the scene to continue assembling his order. In the post incident interview, F.T. said that he intended to return. He had made eye contact with the co-worker who had observed the mishap and left the scene with the impression that the site had been secured and that clean up was on the way. Five days later he was issued a three-day suspension notice.
Two months later, F.T. was called to account by a supervisor for two incidents where he stalled in the face of a supervisor’s direct order to re-wrap insufficiently wrapped pallets. In one case he claimed that he put off his supervisor’s order because he needed to attend to washroom needs first. In the second instance, he claimed that he needed to first locate a special piece of equipment in order to re-wrap an unstable pallet that was stacked in a truck above floor level. F.T. was issued a one-day suspension.
Near miss
Two months later F.T. was issued a five-day suspension for “operating a machine in an unsafe manner” following a close call between his forklift and a pedestrian. Despite video evidence of the near encounter, F.T. vehemently denied the near miss, stating in the post incident interview, “I don’t know what you’re talking about … I’m not responsible for anyone’s actions. If they don’t watch what they’re doing on the floor, it’s their f***ing problem.”
The question, said the arbitrator, was whether or not F.T. had acted in the alleged incidents in a manner to justify the discipline. He had.
The discipline was appropriate in the first instance for F.T.’s failure to follow proper safety procedures. The reasons F.T. offered for leaving the scene of the onion spill before securing it and then failing to contact a supervisor were insufficient. “The level of discipline imposed by the Company falls within a reasonable range of disciplinary response,” the arbitrator said.
Inconsistencies and contradictions in F.T.’s testimony with respect to his stalling in the face of direct orders to re-wrap pallets led the arbitrator to a finding of insubordination. While the arbitrator agreed with F.T.’s assertion that adults in the workplace should not need to ask for permission to go to the bathroom, in this case F.T. “could have simply informed [his supervisor] he was going to do so and would then return to re-wrap the pallet.”
His story to explain why he failed to re-wrap an unstable pallet that had been loaded in a truck also did not add up, the arbitrator said.
The video evidence of the close call incident with the forklift supported the company’s assessment, the arbitrator said, finding that “the Company had proper cause to discipline [F.T.] for unsafe operation of his machine …”
The grievances were dismissed.
