An inside postal worker was fired following a workplace incident that featured a profanity laced tantrum where he lost control, ultimately bumping his supervisor with a wheeled hand rack while telling him to “get the f—- out of my way.”
The union grieved the termination, arguing that there was not sufficient cause to terminate the worker because he in no way intended to injure his supervisor.
Also, there were mitigating circumstances the union said, which only came to light after the termination. The union contended that, unbeknownst to the employer, the worker’s doctor prematurely ordered him to cease taking his prescribed antipsychotic medication and that the outburst was attributable to symptoms associated with withdrawal from the medication.
Designated a “PO 4,” M. had seven-and-a-half years’ service at the post office when he was terminated in June 2008. M. had a reputation as a hard worker who was highly motivated to do well.
Treated for agitated depression
Diagnosed with agitated depression in August 2006, M. took a medical/stress leave and was treated by his family doctor with antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs. M. also attended regular psychotherapy sessions at a rehabilitation centre that he had access to because of his benefits.
In October 2007, M. began a graduated, eight-week return-to-work process.
The return to work went well. On December 15, at the end of the return-to-work process, M.’s supervisor followed up an earlier positive report to M.’s case manager at the insurance carrier with another final report that stated that M. was “doing very well,” and he invited the case manager to close the file.
With the end of the formal return-to-work process M.’s entitlement to regular psychotherapy also ended. As well, M.’s doctor responded to M.’s progress by reducing and then ending his prescription to risperidone, an antipsychotic drug sometimes used in concert with antidepressants to act a as a mood stabilizer. Another change was also in store. Two weeks after returning to work full time, M.’s supervisor — who checked in weekly with M. during his return-to-work — was replaced by a new supervisor who was unaware of M.’s situation.
Relapse after return to work
By February, M.’s doctor began to note a difference in M.’s attitude towards work, recording that he was no longer getting along so well.
M. began to manifest a testy attitude at work. He was refractory — given to engaging in personal work-to-rule campaigns to protest what he perceived to be inadequate working conditions and staffing levels, becoming defiant and profane when confronted. In one incident during a night shift, the new operations director came upon M. sitting idly on flat bed truck. Asked what he was doing, M. became loud and disrespectful. He used repeated profanities and complained about staffing levels and inadequate equipment. M. was not disciplined for that incident but he was warned to be civil and a non-disciplinary letter was placed in his file.
However, he was disciplined for another impromptu sit down incident and confrontation that followed.
On June 6, during the night shift, M. returned from the lunchroom to work at the bar code sorting station only to discover numerous letter container boxes improperly stacked against the wall. Under a tight deadline to process the mail, the prospect of having to first deal with such a mess triggered M. who was afterwards overheard by his supervisor complaining to the union steward in very forceful terms.
Nudged but not injured
The situation deteriorated from there. Following M. to the sorting station, the supervisor found M. thrashing about and cursing. Questioned about where the mail was that he was complaining about, M. said, “I’m not the f——— supervisor, you are the f——— supervisor and it’s your f——— job to find the mail on the floor not mine. F—- this …”
Shortly afterwards, M. roughly pulled a hand rack loaded with mail past his supervisor while warning him to “get the f—- out of my way.” The supervisor was nudged by the rack, but not injured.
M. was suspended and then fired. The union grieved.
The Arbitrator rejected the employer’s argument that the medical evidence offered concerning M’s condition at the time of the incident was just speculation.
“[T]he Arbitrator is satisfied that in determining whether the corporation had just cause to discharge [M.] based on events and circumstances as they existed at the point of termination, it is appropriate to consider evidence of medical circumstances impacting [M.] at the time of the event giving rise to his discharge, notwithstanding that the proper analysis of his condition came to light after the discharge.”
The Arbitrator accepted the analysis of M.’s new doctor — a specialist in psychopharmacology — that he had been taken off the risperidone too quickly and right at a time when other critical supports were removed.
“The Arbitrator accepts her medical assessment that as a direct result of these circumstances, [M.] suffered a relapse of his symptoms of major, agitated depression that started to show in mid February and which progressed to a full flare up at the time of the June 2008 incident.”
Not responsible
M. could not and should not be held responsible, the Arbitrator said, and, in the circumstances, just cause for the discharge was not established.
The Arbitrator also rejected the employer’s argument that M.’s violent act and subsequent lack of contrition rendered reinstatement inappropriate because of the likelihood that he would repeat the behaviour.
The Arbitrator said that because M. had intended no violence and was unaware that he had bumped into in his supervisor that it was not reasonable to expect him to be contrite for something he did not either know about or intend.
The employer’s concerns about M.’s potential for aggressive behaviour in the future and its duty to provide a safe working environment for its employees were satisfied, the Arbitrator said, by the assurance that M. was now under a regime of regular psychotherapy and psychopharmacological monitoring.
The grievance was upheld and the Arbitrator ordered conditional reinstatement without compensation.
