The grievor had anger issues. She was working under a last chance agreement requiring her to control her anger. When she was asked to work near her ex-husband, her loud and protracted outburst resulted in her termination.
A municipal worker with an abrasive personality was fired for failing to live up to the terms of the Code of Conduct in her Last Chance Agreement (LCA).
S.X. worked as a manual sorter in a municipal recycling facility. She was hired in 2002. There was significant discipline on S.X.’s record. Her behaviour had drawn warnings, disciplinary letters and suspensions under the employer’s progressive discipline regime.
Following her second five-day suspension for inappropriate conduct, S.X. returned to work in June 2009 under the terms of a LCA that committed her to observing the terms of a Code of Conduct.
S.X. was put on notice that any more incidents of bullying behaviour, harassment or angry outbursts would result in her termination.
S.X. was not well liked at work. She had fractious relationships with many of her co-workers.
Pulling down co-workers’ pants
Testimony from her co-workers painted a picture of S.X. as someone who could be willful, irritable, mercurial and vituperative. She was described variously as behaving either like a two-year-old or an adolescent — given to extravagant and angry outbursts when she didn’t get her way.
S.X.’s disciplinary record also contained examples of “run-of-the-mill” bits of misbehaviour such as failing to wear required safety equipment and pulling down other employees’ pants.
S.X. was a good worker in some respects but she had difficulty taking direction and managing her temper. While S.X.’s behaviour was not always amenable to disciplinary action, her obstreperousness and volatility made her a constant burden to her co-workers who had to put up with her.
Following the break down of S.X.’s marriage in June 2009, the employer met with S.X. and her husband — also an employee at the facility — to impress upon the couple the need to keep their work lives and home lives separate.
For its part, the employer undertook to try to schedule the couple to work in separate areas. However, given the nature of the operations at the workplace, the employer emphasized that it could offer no guarantees.
During the morning on Sept. 22, 2009, S.X. became disgruntled when the other four workers on the line she was working on resisted her attempts to pick up the pace of work by increasing the line speed.
S.X. complained to the manager and disparaged her co-workers.
The manager improvised a solution and assigned S.X. to fill in for the afternoon on another line for a worker who had left early.
However, S.X. became incensed when her manager gave her the assignment because her husband was also working on that line.
Angry tirade
S.X. followed her manager while delivering an angry tirade as he returned to his office. She alleged that the manager was “setting her up” and that he was reneging on a deal. S.X. was ordered to return to the manager’s office with union representation.
S.X. returned with the Union Steward as directed. S.X. continued to rant in a very loud voice until she was asked to leave the office to compose herself.
S.X. was fired.
The employer argued that S.X. was properly terminated because her behaviour violated the terms of the Code of Conduct laid out in the LCA. Even if that were not the case, the employer said that her behaviour could fairly be characterized as a culminating incident warranting termination. S.X.’s office meltdown came in the wake of two five-day suspensions for recent similar incidents of misbehaviour. She was on notice that she could be terminated in the event of another outburst.
The union agreed that S.X. may have had a bad day. However, the union said, it was understandable in the circumstances if she reacted somewhat emotionally when faced with the prospect of having to work with her estranged spouse. Nevertheless, the union argued that S.X.’s behaviour did not cross the line to the extent that she had violated the Code of Conduct in the LCA.
The Arbitrator disagreed.
“I need only decide whether the Grievor’s behaviour described in the evidence, viewed cumulatively, constitutes, more probably than not, ‘an angry outburst,’ within the meaning of the Last Chance Agreement. And, having regard to the totality of the evidence put before me, I am satisfied that it does.”
S.X. was indignant and irate at the prospect of being assigned to work with her estranged husband. She protested loudly. She also became incensed, the Arbitrator said, at what she perceived to be her manager’s unfairness in the circumstances. She was angry and her “tempestuous interaction” with her supervisor could be heard outside the office. In fact, S.X. was so loud and abrasive that the manager felt it necessary to ask her to leave in order to calm down.
S.X. had violated the terms of the LCA. The grievance was dismissed.
