The grievors accepted responsibility for their careless attitudes and the resulting loss of product. However, the arbitrator ruled, to err is human and termination is too serious a penalty for a single event of this nature.
Two maintenance mechanics were fired after their failure to follow instructions and proper procedures caused a costly and potentially dangerous spill.
M.B. and B.F. were maintenance mechanics at an industrial bakery. M.B. had 23 years’ service with the company while B.F. had less than four years. Neither had been disciplined.
On July 17, 2010, M.B. was given a work order to open the white flour receiving bin/silo in preparation for cleaning. He was also asked to check out some reported problems with the brown flour receiving bin. B.F. was to assist.
Standard practice was to lock out the electrical panel to the flour room and then perform a visual inspection to verify that the bin was empty before opening the panel at the bottom. To inspect the contents of a bin, a worker had to go to the top of the bin, remove the sock that covered the opening at the top and then use a flashlight to view into the bin.
M.B. and B.F. both put their locks on the electrical panel. However, instead of conducting a proper visual inspection from the top of the bin, they merely rapped on the bin with a mallet to confirm that it was empty.
Instead of removing the panel from the receiving bin as he had been directed to do, M.B. removed the bottom panel from a storage bin.
15 tons of flour
Next, M.B. moved on to inspect the brown flour bin as he had been asked to do. While M.B. and B.F. worked on the brown flour bin, white flour from the storage bin they had mistakenly opened began to pour out on to the floor.
When the spill was discovered, 15 tons of flour was on the floor surrounding the silo five feet deep.
While spills of that size have the potential to create explosive dust hazards, no such threat materialized in this case. However, it did cost the company $13,000 to clean up the spill.
M.B. and B.F. were fired. The union grieved.
The employer said termination was appropriate. M.B. and B.F. had failed to follow established safety procedures and the explicit, written instructions contained in the work order. Their actions constituted gross negligence. They had endangered their coworkers and left the employer with a significant bill for clean up.
The union said discharge was too severe. Neither worker had been disciplined. One had 23 years’ service. B.F. — the junior worker — had not even seen the work order. He joined M.B. while the work was in progress, assuming M.B. knew what he was doing. M.B. had made a mistake, but the bins were not labeled and, contrary to the employer’s assertion, there was no written procedure on record outlining the proper way to check the level of a bin.
Negligent performance
Both workers had been negligent in their performance of duties that were within their competence and qualifications, the Arbitrator said.
Workers will make mistakes from time to time, the Arbitrator acknowledged. Perfection is not a reasonable standard of performance.
Nevertheless, citing Arbitrator Shime in Air Canada, the Arbitrator agreed that mistakes and errors that flow from carelessness or inattentiveness — factors that an employee has control over — will properly draw a disciplinary response.
Discipline was warranted, the Arbitrator said, but discharge was too severe a penalty in the circumstances. The workers had accepted responsibility for their mistakes. They were candid and contrite.
“In all of the circumstances of this matter and in consideration of the range of penalties… I find that a substantial disciplinary suspension of four months is justified and shall be substituted for the penalty of discharge…”
The grievors were ordered reinstated without loss of seniority, but without pay or benefits for the period of their suspension.
