Other worker had less seniority, more experience
A millwright filed a grievance after he was laid off and not allowed to bump a less senior worker in the same job category.
John Toppozini worked at Lac des Iles mine, which is northwest of Thunder Bay, Ont., and was hired Feb. 10, 2015, as a journeyman millwright.
He was assigned to work a good portion of his time on the hoist, which was responsible for bringing miners to the surface, as well as raw material.
During his time on-site, Toppozini signed off on logbooks after completing various inspections of the vital hoist operation. The logbooks indicated the hoist’s operation complied with labour ministry guidelines.
In mid-August, he was reassigned to work in the mill and did not return to the hoist before he was eventually laid off Sept. 30.
On March 30, the company hired Victor Bartlett to help with hoist operations. Maintenance superintendent Trevor Davis knew Bartlett from working with him previously and brought him onboard because he had eight years’ experience directly working with hoists.
Toppozini, on the other hand, had no formal training or experience before working at Lac des Iles.
When he was laid off, Toppozini and the union, United Steel Workers, argued the company breached the collective agreement by not allowing him to be given precedence over the less-senior union member.
But the company knew his skills were only rudimentary. “(Toppozini) was on loan from the mill and had no mining background, we put him with people he would be safe with and who could work with him,” said Davis.
Toppozini did have certification as a millwright journeyman, but Bartlett received his qualifications by way of challenge, which meant he simply passed an examination to achieve the certification.
The union argued Toppozini received his certification via a post-secondary institution and an apprenticeship, which was one of the requirements for the job in question. Bartlett did not apprentice.
The job posting used the phrase “comfortable working on hoists” which the union argued also proved Toppozini satisfied the job requirements. And by being allowed to sign the ministry logbooks, it said management felt comfortable in giving him this responsibility.
The company countered, saying Toppozini did not complete any training while on the job, which were known as Hepburn and Sherrington short-courses and were mandated by the ministry after a 2014 site visit.
Lac des Iles said the hoist was a crucial part of the company’s mining operations and it could not trust an untrained or unqualified individual to use it. Toppozini always worked with other employees while on duty.
“The evidence does not establish the grievor’s skill and ability to work on hoists meets the ‘requirements and the efficiency of the operations.’ I find the company reasonably concluded he did not possess, at the time of layoff, ‘the present ability to perform available work; on the hoists, pursuant to art. 12.3(a),” said arbitrator William Marcotte .
Davis supervised both men and was correctly able to assess the skills for the job requirements, said Marcotte.
“The company’s assessment of the requirements and efficiency of its operations is reasonable. I find the company’s decision-making process in determining whether the grievor or Mr. Bartlett was to be laid off was not improper. I find the company did not improperly assess the grievor’s skill and ability to perform hoist work,” said Marcotte.
The grievance was dismissed by Marcotte.
Reference: Lac des Iles mines and United Steel Workers, Local 9422. William Marcotte — arbitrator. William Shanks for the employer. Herbert Daniher for the employee. Oct. 17, 2016.
