Fired after narrowly escaping serious injury or death when the machine he was working on arced, a plant maintenance mechanic grieved his termination.
Beginning his employment in 1989 in the United Kingdom with a large chemical and materials manufacturer, S.D. moved to Ontario in 2001 to work in the company’s Kingston plant. He continued to work there following the plant’s purchase by another company in 2004. With 20 years’ combined experience, S.D. was considered to be a good employee and had a discipline-free record with no safety infractions when he was terminated in 2009.
Ten hours into a 12-hour shift, S.D. was called to assist with a nylon yarn-spinning machine that had become jammed.
S.D. first activated the emergency stop, which stopped the machine but did not de-energize it. S.D. then removed the machine’s faceplate and, using a picking tool, removed some of the nylon yarn that had become stuck. He next removed a collar to expose the machine’s heated sleeve in order to get at the remaining yarn that was jamming the machine. As he was removing the yarn from the sleeve, an electrical arc jumped from the machine’s 350-volt motor to the sleeve.
Near miss
Alerted to the near miss by a plant safety representative who filed a report after witnessing the incident, S.D.’s supervisors interviewed him before his next shift. S.D. acknowledged that he had not locked out the machine and asserted that he didn’t think a lock out was necessary for that particular job. Queried about his familiarity with the applicable Standard Operating Procedures and Job Safety Analysis documents, S.D. answered that he had reviewed what he believed to be the appropriate procedures after the incident.
ut before being worked on with tools. S.D.’s actions demonstrated a critical lack of judgment and his assertion during the post-incident interview that a lock out was not necessary in that case failed to meet the company’s expectations with respect to compliance with safety procedures.
Before the arbitrator, the employer argued that termination was necessary for the purposes of deterrence and because it could not be sure that S.D. would follow proper procedures in future.
While the arbitrator acknowledged the seriousness of the incident and the demonstrated importance of safety to the company, a suspension was deemed the appropriate response given S.D.’s 20 years of service with no discipline.
No blanket rule
Despite company claims about a blanket lock out rule when tools are to be used on machinery, there were in fact some ambiguities, the arbitrator pointed out. “While the company has trained employees in safety protocols and procedures, the materials provided by [the company] to employees that set out the procedures do not appear to stipulate that whenever a Maintenance Mechanic picks up tools to work under the faceplate the equipment is to be locked out.”
Nonetheless, the arbitrator said, S.D.’s mistake was potentially life threatening and, as a long service Maintenance Mechanic, he should have known better.
While discipline was warranted, termination was excessive. S.D. had acknowledged his mistake, the arbitrator said, and it was “highly unlikely” that he would make the same mistake again.
In the circumstances, a lengthy (nine month) suspension was sufficient for the purposes of deterrence, the arbitrator said. “[R]einstating [S.D.] with a significant period of suspension without compensation ought to be more than sufficient to provide strong incentives for other employees to ensure they pay close attention to company safety procedures and that they follow them … I cannot see why only a discharge is sufficient penalty to bring home to employees the importance of following safety protocols and the potentially serious consequences if one does not.”
