Fleeing the plant after an impromptu lunchroom debriefing session deteriorated into name-calling and threats of discipline, a packaging line equipment operator at a juice packing plant was fired for insubordination and for leaving the plant before the end of the shift without authorization.
The union grieved the termination, arguing that there were mitigating circumstances and that the penalty was too severe.
E.G. was a seven-year employee at the juice packing plant where he oversaw the automated production lines that produce tetra packed fruit juices.
The plant was short staffed when E.G. worked the overnight shift on June 23, 2009 with another operator and L.L., a friend of E.G. who had recently been appointed to the position of supervisor.
Unaware that E.G. had been labouring elsewhere with problems on another line, L.L. greeted E.G.’s appearance with a query as to whether or not E.G. was prepared to help him with his line and a backup that had been caused by a jam in the straw machine.
E.G. evidently took offense at the apparent implication that he had been slacking off. More than that, E.G.’s irritation was exacerbated by his perception that L.L. was attempting to make an impression by ramping up production while they were short-staffed when he should have made arrangements to have another employee come in and cover for the missing operator.
All of this came out in the lunchroom.
L.L. said that he had tried to find someone to work but that no one wanted the overtime.
Called supervisor stupid
E.G.’s response was that either L.L. was “stupid” or that he was guilty of harbouring stupid ideas.
L.L. then cautioned E.G. that he could be suspended for calling his supervisor stupid.
Angered, E.G. exited abruptly. Tipping over his chair while saying he was going home, E.G. ignored L.L.’s instruction to see him in the office before leaving the plant. Three days later E.G. was fired.
E.G. was guilty of insubordination and culpable conduct for speaking to his supervisor in that way, the Arbitrator said. He was also culpable for ignoring his supervisor’s order to report to the office and for failing to complete his shift.
E.G.’s story that he left abruptly because he was under the impression that he had been ordered to leave the premises didn’t wash, the Arbitrator said.
“In all the circumstances, I find that [E.G.] was guilty of significant misconduct especially in leaving his post when he knew and indeed complained that the shift was short of manpower that night. His misconduct was exacerbated through his attempts to exculpate himself by pointing the finger at his Supervisor suggesting he was incompetent to work in that capacity. It was further aggravated by his attempt to misconstrue the events such that his departure from the plant appeared to be an honest mistake as opposed to a deliberate transgression.”
Did not disrupt production
Nevertheless, E.G.’s transgressions did not warrant termination. The incident did not occur in the plant, but in the lunchroom and production was not disrupted. But for E.G.’s expressions of disdain for L.L.’s ability and leadership, the Arbitrator said that reinstatement and a five-day suspension would be appropriate.
However, the Arbitrator’s concerns about the potential negative impact of reinstatement in view of E.G.’s attitude were moot as E.G. had secured other employment in the interim.
An award of damages in lieu of reinstatement was the more appropriate course, the Arbitrator ruled.
“In the circumstances, having found that the termination was excessive and that a five (5) day suspension should be substituted, which I now direct, I hesitate, nonetheless, to order reinstatement at this time. Rather, I direct the Parties to discuss alternatives and damages.”
