Two employees cut corners in moving a piece of equipment and damage resulted. Their supervisor tried to cover it up and they played along. Their actions deserved discipline, but not termination.
Two workers at a nuclear power station were fired for participating in an attempt to cover up a workplace accident. The union grieved.
B.H. was a civil maintainer at a nuclear generating station. He had 22 years’ service with the employer. D.M. was also a civil maintainer at the station. She had worked there 13 years.
Workplace safety was a high priority for the employer.
On August 28, 2010 the two workers dumped a heavy load during the course of a move.
While the workers had complied with the company’s rigorous safety rules and protocols on critical materials handling for the previous 25 moves, they abandoned their training for move 26.
According to safety procedures, at least three workers were needed to move a Small Article Monitor (SAM). Used to scan small objects for radiation, SAMs are top-heavy cubes. Though only about one square metre in size, they nevertheless weigh nearly 1480 kilos. Their value is about $80,000.
Along with three other workers, B.H. and D.M. had successfully moved five SAMs on August 28.
However, later that afternoon the First Line Manager (FLM) asked B.H. and D.M. to move the last SAM by themselves.
Six-step, pre-job briefing
They did not complete the six-step, pre-job briefing process specified by the Job Safety Analysis produced for the task.
Instead of transferring the SAM from the smaller, hand-operated fork truck to a forklift, they attempted the full length of the move on the smaller fork truck.
During the move, the load developed a wobble and the SAM hit the floor. Though there were no injuries, there was significant damage to the machine.
Notified about the accident, the FLM came on scene and supervised a cleanup.
The FLM breached safety protocols by failing to immediately notify her superiors of the accident and by altering the accident scene.
At the end of the shift the crew met outside for a smoke. The FLM said she would submit an accident report.
The report she submitted said that she had conducted the pre-job briefing herself. She said that proper safety procedures required during the move — including tying down the load — had been observed. She said that they used the fork truck rather than the preferred forklift because lighting conditions were not suitable for the forklift. She said she was present during the move.
Conspiracy
The story was a lie. Nevertheless, at a meeting she later held at her house to help them all get the story straight, the FLM told B.H. and D.M. to stick to the story or risk being in greater trouble.
The workers did stick to the story. They lied during the initial phases of the company investigation into the accident.
However, ultimately the conspiracy unraveled. The workers confessed. They were fired on October 7.
Substantial discipline was warranted for the misconduct that led to the accident and the failures to follow procedure, the Arbitrator said.
Their terminations were justified for their dishonest conduct following the accident.
“[The employer] requires honest and complete reporting of safety incidents. This culture, supported by [the union], is to weigh honesty very heavily in determining discipline in safety incidents, where the employee admits wrongdoing. Although this has resulted at times in light disciplinary responses in some safety situations, the culture of honesty in addressing safety issues enables the Employer and the Union to fully appreciate the circumstances of an accident so that they improve their safety procedures.”
The workers admitted to participating in a cover-up and to lying. This conduct threatened the core of the employment relationship, the Arbitrator said.
“This is particularly true when safety is at issue, and particularly in a nuclear plant. The Employer (and the Union) must be able to understand why things went wrong so they can take steps to prevent the wrong in the future. When employees act as the Grievors did, particularly when they conspire to lie and to hide the truth, they strike at the heart of the employment relationship.”
While the employer was justified in terminating the workers, the Arbitrator found that a reasonable consideration of mitigating circumstances indicated that suspensions without pay — in addition to a demotion for B.H. — were appropriate.
No “gumption”
Both workers were contrite and sincerely remorseful. Their terminations were a heavy burden on the families of the two workers. Until that point in their careers, their records were discipline-free. As well, the workers only became involved in the conspiracy because their supervisor had told them to stick with the version of the story that she had told to management.
Opting for the “courageous path” would have required the workers to defy their supervisor and tell the truth from the outset. However, they did not have the “gumption” to do that, the Arbitrator said.
“Instead, they adopted the route of least resistance, hoping their subterfuge would succeed. Unfortunately, and little to their credit, only when the cover-up was demolished did the Grievors face the inevitable, and own up to what they had done.”
D.M. was to be reinstated with no compensation for the seven-month period between her termination and reinstatement. For his larger role in perpetrating the conspiracy, B.H. was suspended without pay for nine months. He was also demoted to the position of janitor for three years.
