The grievor had been involved, with others, on a work slowdown immediately prior to a production cut-back. He claimed that, as a utility worker, it was not his responsibility to move the product in question. The arbitrator ruled it was, as he relieved the forklift drivers while they went on break.
A Utility Operator at a steel mill was disciplined for dereliction of duty after he failed to follow standard practice and relieve the other forklift operators who were on break.
M.J. had about four years’ experience working as a Utility Operator at a steel mill. As a Utility Operator, it was M.J.’s job to relieve the other five Forklift Operators while they took half-hour breaks during their 12-hour shifts.
Forklift Operators were a key part of production at the mill because they were responsible for moving the finished, two-tonne coils of rolled steel through the various stages of processing at the plant.
Preparations for a one-week shutdown at the mill began on the overnight shift leading up to the scheduled 8 a.m. shutdown on April 18.
Difficult contract negotiations between management and the union had contributed to a workplace fraught with labour relations tension.
The bargaining unit representing the mill workers — one of three bargaining units at the operation — refused to accept the employer’s proposed five-year contract extension, which contained concessions and no wage increases. On April 8, the union informed the employer the offer had been rejected.
On April 12, the employer announced it intended to close the “melt” section of the mill and reduce the shift complement in the mill from three shifts to two.
Tension in the workplace
On April 28, the union re-voted to accept the offer. However, prior to the re-vote and on the shift leading up to the shutdown, there was considerable stress and tension in the workplace.
The staged shutdown at the mill early on April 18 called for the production of coils to stop at 6 a.m. The remaining two hours in the shift would allow for cleanup and for the Forklift Operators to move the finished coils from hooks in the post-production area into storage and to bring the coils that would require extra finishing — the “re-trims” — into position to be ready for start-up.
Troubles began to mount during the shift. There were not enough hooks in post-production to handle the volume of finished coils. The supervisor noted that the Forklift Operators were removing the coils from the hooks at a slower pace than normal and surmised that the operators were “on a kind of slowdown.”
Rather than provoke a confrontation, the supervisor opted to slow the production of coils to accommodate the slower pace of work.
Nevertheless, after the last coil came from production at 6:12 a.m., the supervisor noted the “re-trims” were not being moved into place as he had directed. When he investigated, the supervisor found two Forklift Operators and M.J. standing where the operators normally take their breaks. The supervisor inquired about plans to comply with his orders about moving the “re-trims.”
Following a brief discussion about his expectations about the number of “re-trims” to be moved, the supervisor gave a direct order.
The supervisor returned five minutes later to find the same workers, including M.J., still standing there. At that point, the workers claimed they were on break.
Workers sent home
Not much had changed one hour later. Only nine re-trims had been moved. The supervisor expected 30 re-trims to be moved in that time. Returning again at 7:45, the supervisor found the same workers. They had changed out of their work clothes. The workers were sent home.
Two operators were assessed 15 demerit points for disobeying instructions. M.J. was assessed 10 demerit points for dereliction of duty.
The union grieved.
M.J.’s regular schedule of relieving operators during production was not written down, but it was automatic. However, the union said, once production stopped, which it did on the morning of April 18, M.J. required specific task assignments from a supervisor.
The union said that M.J. was not present when the supervisor issued the order to move the re-trims. Therefore he did not refuse an order nor was he obligated to relieve the other operators who were on break.
M.J. was present, the Arbitrator said. The supervisor’s testimony on that issue was more credible in the circumstances — and the supervisor had contemporaneous notes to support him.
The Arbitrator acknowledged the supervisor did not issue a direct order to M.J. to move the re-trims. That wasn’t necessary in this case. A direct order was given to the regular Forklift Operators and it was up to M.J. to relieve them as necessary.
“There is no dispute that on April 18, 2011, after production ceased at 6:12 a.m., [the supervisor] instructed the forklift operators to load re-trims. Therefore, the grievor’s responsibility, as the utility operator, was to relieve them in the performance of that work from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. That is, the grievor’s responsibility to relieve other employees is not dependent per se on whether or not production is going on, rather, his responsibility is to relieve employees when they are performing work. I find, therefore, the grievor did not fulfill his duty to relieve the forklift operators between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m. in that they had been instructed to perform re-trim loading work.”
The grievance was dismissed.
