The grievor left his post and asked an untrained colleague to cover for him. A significant amount of product was wasted when the equipment malfunctioned. The arbitrator found termination was justified.
A mill worker responsible for overseeing a critical operation was fired after leaving his station in violation of company policy.
R.M. was fired from his job at a pipe mill in July 2010 following documented incidents of poor work performance, attendance problems and insubordination. He was reinstated two months later under the terms of a Last Chance Agreement (LCA).
The LCA committed R.M. to make efforts to improve his performance and attitude and to follow all company rules, policies and procedures.
As the ID Operator at the employer’s number II spiral pipe mill, R.M.’s job was a key position at the head of the mill. He was responsible for monitoring the positioning of the weld head and ensuring proper seam tracking on the inside welds.
During production, the ID Operator was required to monitor the process at all times. Written company policy prohibited ID Operators from leaving their posts without first having arranged for a competent person to cover for them.
R.M. left his post during production for about 10 minutes of his shift on Sat., April 16, 2011. R.M. went to the washroom and made a phone call after leaving J.F. in charge. Designated as the “uncoiler, ”J.F. occupied the number three spot on the line. He did not have experience as an ID Operator.
$180,000 loss
While R.M. was absent from his post, the welding head became misaligned, which caused a continuous gap in the pipe’s spiral seam. About 60 feet of pipe was lost and the mill had to be shut down for three hours, which resulted in a $180,000 loss to the employer.
R.M. was fired. The union grieved.
The union said R.M.’s breach of the LCA came about because of a mistake of fact. R.M. believed J.F. was competent to fill in at the ID Operator position. R.M. did not knowingly flout policy. He made an error in judgment and should not be terminated for this breach of the LCA.
The employer argued the termination was justified. R.M. had committed a breach of his LCA. In the alternative, R.M. was on the hook for deficient work performance and his termination was a justifiable step in the course of progressive discipline. However, the employer said, R.M. knew J.F. was not up to the task and by leaving him in charge, R.M. had clearly breached workplace policy and the LCA.
The Arbitrator agreed.
R.M. knew J.F. was not capable of stepping into the ID Operator position. J.F. testified he told R.M. that he had never acted as ID Operator before and he didn’t know what to do. R.M. had assured J.F. that it would be all right because the mill was “running good.” In fact, it was not all right and when the seam opened up, J.F. did not know what to do and was unable even to locate the stop button at the ID Operator position and was forced to return to his own station to stop the mill, the company argued.
R.M.’s explanations were not persuasive and his version of events was not credible, the Arbitrator said.
“I have not overlooked [R.M.’s] explanation that many things may cause the interior seam to open. However, I find the seam opened because the weld head had failed to track the seam and [J.F.] was unable to make the necessary adjustment because he lacked the ability to do so.”
Previous discipline
The Arbitrator also discounted R.M.’s assertion he would not have shown such disregard for the employer’s interests. R.M.’s record indicated he had been disciplined for failing to notify the employer he would be late for work; for sleeping on the job; and, for smoking in the plant — infractions that undermined the credibility of R.M.’s claims about his respect for the need for compliance with company rules.
The Arbitrator acknowledged the challenges of R.M.’s personal circumstances would be exacerbated by his termination. However, the Arbitrator said, “This is not a case where the Grievor had a previous good record.”
“Having regard to all the mitigating circumstances, including the Employer’s interests and existence of the Last Chance Agreement, I have been unable to conclude there are any compelling or exceptional reasons to substitute a lesser penalty. The Grievor violated a fundamental and significant operational policy. The violation occurred six months into the two year term of the Last Chance Agreement. It caused an immediate shut down of the number two Spiral Operating mill and resulted in financial loss to the Employer. Lastly, the Grievor has failed to demonstrate any remorse and presented a misleading version of facts during the hearing.”
The grievance was dismissed.
