Dozer operator fired after he put coworkers at risk
An operator was rightfully dismissed after he bulldozed past safety regulations, an arbitrator has ruled.
Will Walter was hired as a full-time dozer operator and backup shovel operator with Teck Coal Limited in July 2008. He was fired by the British Columbia-based mining company on April 3, 2013, for a safety violation.
The employer’s safety program was described by sole arbitrator Mark J. Brown as "robust." Work takes place in a dangerous environment and involves massive equipment. In an effort to protect employees, the company requires daily tailgate meetings and regular crew meetings as well as employing extensive policies and procedures.
Regular operation of the mine involves removing waste to expose a coal seam.
That waste is loaded into a truck and dumped at a designated site overseen by a dozer operator.
The dozer operator is responsible for signalling truck drivers when it is safe for them to approach the designated dump zone and for guiding them as they back up to the edge of the "dump deck."
Dump short and push
There are two acceptable methods for dumping waste at the designated zone.
The first is called "dump short and push." This method is used when the slope into the dump deck is especially steep.
In the "dump short and push" method trucks are instructed by the dozer operator to stop short of the edge.
Because the edge of the dump deck is more likely to give way when it is especially steep, the "dump short and push" method is used to prevent trucks from driving too close as it may result in a — likely lethal — fall.
During "dump short and push" trucks are signalled to stop eight metres from the edge and dump the load, allowing the dozer operator to push the load over the edge.
When the edge of the dump deck is not especially steep trucks are able to drive within half a metre of the edge to "dump clean or clear."
When trucks dump the load from this distance the entire load goes over the edge and into the dump zone.
The slope of the dump deck is monitored daily to ensure dozer operators provide trucks with accurate instructions.
On March 23, 2013, Walter was assigned as the dozer operator at the dump zone.
At the beginning of his shift Walter was instructed by his foreman Marty Lant that all loads were to "dump short and push" due to the muddy conditions. Walter acknowledged the instructions.
Just before 11 a.m. Lant received a call from a fellow foreman advising him Walter was directing trucks to "dump clear."
Lant testified he went to the dump zone and emphasized to Walter that all loads were to "dump short and push."
They walked the edge of the dump zone together to ensure Walter understood why the muddy conditions created a safety concern and how important it was the "dump short and push" method was used for all loads.
In his testimony, Walter denied he walked the edge with Lant and claimed Lant never specifically referenced "dump short and push," but acknowledged the purpose of Lant’s visit was to ensure the "dump short and push" method was used for all loads.
Lant left to attend another dump zone, in clear view of where Walter was working. He testified he watched a truck back up to the edge and dump, with almost the entire load falling directly over the edge.
Lant immediately returned to where Walter was working, asked him to step down from the dozer and questioned him about continuing to "dump clear" despite explicit instructions not to.
Walter was interviewed in the presence of a shop steward following the incident.
He said he had not instructed any trucks to "dump clear" but had simply misjudged the distance between the trucks and the edge of the dump deck.
Walter was suspended while the employer investigated the situation, and was subsequently terminated for the safety violation.
Impaired judgment
The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 115, filed a grievance on Walter’s behalf.
The union conceded there was cause for discipline but called his dismissal "excessive." A lengthy suspension was requested as an appropriate substitute as Walter had no previous discipline.
The employer argued Walter understood his instructions but chose to ignore them, compromising the safety of the drivers by taking a short cut.
The employer further argued Walter minimized the seriousness of the situation and evaded answering questions during the investigation.
Walter maintained he had not instructed drivers to "dump clear" but had simply misjudged the distance while guiding the trucks toward the edge of the dump deck.
Based on his judgment, Walter testified, the trucks were never in danger.
"Given the specific instructions and knowing the serious safety risk, one would think that after one load was misjudged, Walter would have taken more care and had the drivers stop even earlier," arbitrator Brown said in his ruling.
"I conclude that Walter’s excuse of misjudging is not acceptable… he was not misjudging the distance but was careless and unsafe."
Brown said he found it especially troubling that Walter stated, by his judgment, the drivers were safe.
He ruled it is not up to an individual employee to pass judgment on what is safe and what is not, saying the employer put specific safety procedures into place for a reason.
Because Walter put his coworkers at serious risk several times and minimized the seriousness of the matter, Brown ruled the termination reasonable and as a result, dismissed the grievance.
Reference: Teck Coal Limited and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 115. Mark J. Brown — Arbitrator. David T. McDonald for the employer, Brandon Quinn for the union. Jan. 20, 2014.
