A dispute over how to proceed with scheduled work quickly and seriously degenerated when an experienced worker took offence at his supervisor’s inference that he was doing his job improperly.
Employed by a metal smelting company for 16 years, S.H. was working in the shipping department where he was responsible for preparing bulk loads of bagged zinc oxide for shipping.
Four loads were scheduled for pick up during S.H.’s shift on the day in question — the first at 11 a.m. However, transport was late for the first load and at 11:30 S.H. was in the lunchroom using his iPhone. Queried by his supervisor as to why the first load was not yet completely assembled, and why preparations for assembling the second load were not already underway, S.H. explained that congestion in the docks prevented the assembly of the second shipment.
A discussion ensued on how to manage the flow and S.H. was ordered directly to finish the first load and begin preparations on the second.
A short time later, the supervisor again intervened to ask S.H. why the bags in the first shipment had not yet had the dust blown off them as per standard practice before shipping. S.H. said he saved that task for last because it only took a few minutes.
Became enraged
At noon, S.H. went to the supervisor’s office to inform him that he was going for lunch. The supervisor then told S.H. that he wanted to talk with him about his productivity and work performance that day. S.H. said he had been doing the job that way for 16 years. The supervisor’s response that 16 years of doing it that way didn’t make it right enraged S.H.
Screaming this is “f——— b—-s—-,“ S.H. slammed his hardhat against the filing cabinet and then stormed out of the office, stomping and kicking obstacles in his way.
The supervisor called after S.H. telling him that he was not finished talking and that S.H. should arrange for union representation.
A minute later, the supervisor followed after S.H. to ensure that he got that message.
When S.H. next caught sight of his supervisor, he vaulted a railing, ran up to the supervisor warning him that he had better “back off.”
Attending a meeting to address the incident later in the day were S.H., the supervisor and a union representative. S.H. was told that the matter was initially about production but that he had made it personal with his threatening behaviour and that consequently he was being suspended.
Six-foot metal bar
S.H. left the office with the union rep. At some point while discussing the situation, S.H. picked up a six-foot metal bar and began to retrace his steps back to the office.
Before S.H. could be prevailed upon to drop the bar, the supervisor witnessed S.H.’s progress towards his office.
S.H. was fired.
Notwithstanding his lengthy service and clean record, the termination was warranted the employer said. S.H. had engaged in behaviour that was insubordinate, abusive and aggressive. Given the employer’s obligation to ensure a safe workplace that is free of violence, termination was appropriate.
There was no violence, no threat of violence or use of a weapon, the union said. S.H. was unaware that his supervisor could see him holding the metal bar. He dropped it at some distance from the office and, in any case, had no intention of harming his supervisor, the union said.
There were also mitigating factors beyond his long service and clean record the union said. The supervisor and provoked him. S.H. had apologized, and he was having personal problems at the time. Moreover, S.H. was being treated harshly in comparison to other workers at the plant who had received discipline only in the wake of incidents of actual violence. All of these factors warranted a reduction of the penalty, the union said.
Calling it a “difficult case,” the Arbitrator narrowly agreed to reduce the penalty.
Heightened awareness of workplace violence
The Arbitrator agreed with the employer’s assessment of the significance of recent amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that strengthen protections against workplace violence. It is “important to take into account in the process of weighing all the factors the heightened awareness and expectation in society today that employers will take the appropriate steps to protect all their workers from violence or threats of violence in the workplace and to promote a safe working environment,” the Arbitrator said.
However, in view of the fact that S.H. had never acted in a threatening or abusive manner in the past a suspension was appropriate.
The grievance was allowed. S.H. was required to provide an unconditional apology acknowledging his full responsibility for his conduct. He was also required attend an anger management course and subject to termination in the event of any recurrence of threatening or violent behaviour.
