A worker who exhibited a violent reaction to being disciplined was reinstated after paying for the damage and enrolling in an anger management course. The arbitrator found him a “changed man” and gave him a second chance.
Fired following a violent outburst, a contrite worker with a compelling story of loss and rehabilitation was reinstated.
A long service employee when he was fired on November 25, 2010, G.W. began working for an auto parts manufacturer in 1987.
On that day, G.W. was found smoking in the plant. At the time he was caught smoking, G.W. had a written warning on his record for a similar offence committed within the previous 12-month period.
G.W. was sent to the supervisor’s office. When he arrived at the office, G.W. discovered it was locked. In a fit of anger, G.W. kicked the door in.
G.W. was fired.
The letter of termination stated that G.W. had “aggressively and forcibly” kicked in the door of one of the company’s supervisors. G.W. had damaged company property and, through his violent actions, had caused other employees to be fearful and intimidated.
The letter referenced new employer obligations under Bill 168, the Violence in the Workplace Act, to exercise due diligence to provide a safe and secure workplace for employees that is free from violence.
Foul language, violent actions
The employer said G.W.’s foul language and violent actions had left it with no alternative but to terminate his employment.
The union did not argue the facts leading to the termination. The question before the Arbitrator was whether or not to mitigate the penalty.
The Arbitrator said G.W. deserved another chance.
G.W. was the only person to testify at the hearing. He was, the Arbitrator said, a “sincere” and “compelling” witness.
A self-acknowledged alcoholic, G.W. had refrained from drink since 2003. However, since his wife died at the age of 40 in 2007, G.W. said his life had become a “roller coaster.”
The Arbitrator noted that G.W. had expressed remorse for his outburst in the immediate aftermath of the incident. He also called the company a day later to express his regret again and to offer to pay for the door.
He undertook anger management counselling.
Discipline warranted
The Arbitrator said discipline was warranted for G.W.’s actions. Willful damage of company property is a serious offence meriting discipline and in some cases termination.
However, in this case, the Arbitrator identified three reasons that argued in favour mitigating the penalty of termination.
The Arbitrator was impressed by G.W.’s prompt expression of remorse in the wake of the incident and the fact that he paid for the damage he had caused.
G.W. voluntarily sought out and began anger management counselling. The Arbitrator accepted the description of G.W. as a “changed man” deserving of a second chance.
G.W. was sincere in his testimony and his demeanor. He considered the incident a “wake-up call” and was persuasive about his determination to make the most of his second chance.
G.W.’s reinstatement with no loss of seniority but without compensation amounted to a 10-month suspension.
The reinstatement was conditional on his adherence to an 18-month last chance agreement.
In addition to acknowledging the de facto suspension, the terms of the agreement included a requirement for G.W.’s continued participation at AA meetings at the frequency he described in his testimony.
G.W. was also to maintain contact with his doctor and to consult an Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) counselor and follow any reasonable recommendations with respect to ongoing counselling to assist him with anger management.
An employer and a union intermediary were to be designated for G.W. to consult with in the event of difficulties in reintegrating into the workplace.
The usual, 12-month sunset period for discipline was to be extended in G.W.’s case to cover the 18 months of his last-chance agreement.
