The grievor was clearly a problem employee. The arbitrator found that the company was not obliged to proceed through the steps of progressive discipline because there was no evidence that his attendance and his attitude were likely to improve.
A worker at a turbine manufacturing plant was fired after repeated absences and insolent behaviour.
C.B. was hired in March 2008 to work at a plant that manufactured gas turbines used in power generation. About 10 months later he went on parental leave. C.B. returned to work in August 2009. However, C.B.’s attendance became very poor following his return to work. He was often late. He left early and frequently did not show up at all.
In October C.B. met with the employer and discussed the family problems that were affecting his attendance. The employer extended C.B. a one-week leave of absence and suggested that he may want to apply for short-term disability or sick leave benefits to carry him over his period of family difficulties.
C.B.’s application for short-term disability benefits was denied in November. In December, C.B. told the employer that he should be able to return to work in January after he had sorted out legal issues and made childcare arrangements.
On Jan. 13, 2011, C.B. met with the employer to discuss his impending return to work the next week. C.B. acknowledged that his attendance had been poor, however he said that his attendance would improve because he had settled custody and childcare questions.
C.B. returned to work on Jan. 18. His attendance did not improve. On March 11 it was announced that the plant would be closing in July. After that announcement, C.B.’s attendance became “outrageous.” He was late or absent almost every day.
Told supervisor to ‘piss off’
On March 31, C.B. had words with his supervisor. The supervisor issued a mild rebuke to C.B. when he found him later in the day after being unable to locate him earlier in the shift. The supervisor suggested that there was no problem but that, in future, C.B. should stay in his work area.
C.B. brushed off the caution with a “whatever” and invited the supervisor to write him up if he felt inclined. The supervisor demurred and told C.B. that he was not trying to take issue. C.B. told him to “piss off.”
C.B. was called into a meeting on April 5. Two supervisors were present along with a union representative.
C.B. acknowledged telling his supervisor to “piss off” and was unrepentant. He also affirmed that his absences were for personal reasons and not due to any illness. Furthermore, he said he could offer no assurances that his attendance would get any better. In fact, he said, in view of the plant’s impending closure, he would be skipping work in favour of side jobs in future.
C.B. was fired. The union grieved.
The union did not dispute that C.B. had a poor attendance record. Nor did the union deny that C.B. told his supervisor to “piss off.” However, the union argued that C.B. had not been afforded the benefit of progressive discipline — there was no discipline on C.B.’s record when he was fired on April 6. The union said that because the employer had not punished him for his poor attendance, C.B. had been lulled into a false sense of security.
Insolence, insubordination and spotty attendance
The employer said the termination was justified. C.B. had relatively little seniority. His work was indifferent. He was insolent to a supervisor. His attendance was terrible and his attitude was worse.
The Arbitrator agreed.
“It appears that [C.B.] was surprised when his employment was terminated, but I find it hard to understand why. He seems to feel that the many accommodations the Company made for him in the past were now an entitlement for the future, and that insolence, insubordination and spotty attendance were now his right … In my view this is one of the rare cases where progressive discipline would have been an exercise in futility. [C.B.] defiantly declared that the Company couldn’t expect improved attendance in future and that he would put his own business interests before the Company’s. He showed no remorse at the time, nor at the hearing. He was spoken to about his attendance in two separate meetings, and it should not have come as a shock to him that the Company was serious about it.”
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Siemens Fossil Power Generation and Canadian Auto Workers, Local 504. Anne Barrett — Sole Arbitrator. Martin Addario for the Employer. Tom Rooke for the Union. May 27, 2010. 11 pp.
