The grievor was not getting along with his colleagues. When they complained that he was overstaying breaks, he threatened several of them. The arbitrator upheld his termination, finding he was the aggressor in the fight and was intimidating his co-workers.
A worker at a meat packing plant was fired for fighting after he tussled with co-workers at the gut table.
A.T. began working on the kill floor at XL Foods in 2005. He progressed through various positions on the line. He was working at the gut table when he was fired following an incident that occurred on June 2, 2011. Discipline on A.T.’s record consisted of two written warnings: one for insubordination and another for tardiness.
A.T. worked regularly with a crew of about seven or eight other workers. Workers at the gut table use knives to remove the guts from beef carcasses that pass by suspended from a conveyor at a rate of about one per minute.
Prior to the incident on June 2, there was growing tension among the crew who were becoming irritated by A.T.’s habitual tardiness. The crew noticed that A.T. was regularly a few minutes late returning from breaks. A.T.’s lateness left the crew short-handed for noticeable periods of time in the face of demanding and unrelenting line speeds.
Word about A.T.’s tardiness reached the crew’s supervisor.
On June 2, 2011, the supervisor came to check on the crew, which was busy working. A.T. was not there. A.T. showed up after a coffee break a few minutes later. The supervisor told A.T. that he was late and added, that A.T. was “late all the time.” When A.T. denied the allegation, the supervisor looked to the crew and asked them whether or not A.T. was late. The crew agreed.
Grabbed by the neck
At the next line break after the supervisor left, A.T. wanted to know who had complained to the supervisor. A.T. approached a member of the crew who had acknowledged making a complaint. A.T. pressed his finger onto the lips of that worker and told him to shut up. Another worker intervened. A.T. grabbed him by the neck and they grappled. A.T. attempted to goad the other worker into going outside to fight. The other worker refused.
The workers were aware that the company had a zero tolerance policy against fighting. A.T. had recently become a Canadian citizen. He was aware that the other workers — who were temporary foreign workers — would be sent home if they lost their jobs.
The supervisor returned to investigate the melee. Ultimately, all the workers were individually called “upstairs” and interviewed by a human resources representative.
A.T. was suspended. The next day, he was fired.
Termination was appropriate for fighting in the workplace, the employer said. There were no significant mitigating factors. A.T. did not take responsibility for his actions and the workplace was inherently dangerous: production was fast-paced, surfaces were slippery and the workers used knives.
The union charged that the investigation into the incident was flawed because A.T. was singled out for punishment. The lack of balance in the investigation was reflected by the disparity in the way the discipline was meted out. A.T. was the only worker who was disciplined for the incident. These flaws should be counted as mitigating factors in A.T.’s favour, the union said.
The Arbitrator disagreed.
“Ultimately, my task is… to determine whether the disparity in treatment between the two [A.T. and the other worker] is a factor that calls for mitigation of the penalty imposed on the grievor. My conclusion is that, in all the circumstances, it is not.”
Uncertain immigration status
The Arbitrator acknowledged that the employer’s policy was that generally both parties involved in a fight would be fired. Such a policy might be justified where the other worker fights back but an innocent victim should not face automatic discipline just because he was attacked, the Arbitrator said.
Against the union’s assertion of A.T.’s positive attributes — that he was a dedicated worker who was supporting his parents in Mali — the Arbitrator considered allegations that A.T. exploited the uncertain immigration and working status of other workers in order to intimidate them.
“While I am not persuaded these allegations were as serious as they were described, I am not convinced they were without foundation either,” the Arbitrator said.
The Arbitrator said that A.T. had not apologized to anyone involved or the employer.
“Rather, he had insisted the matter was due to others being against him. The grievor gave virtually no indication of accepting responsibility for his own actions. Rather, he maintained a somewhat wounded attitude; aggrieved that others would stab him in the back rather than deal with him directly, without any indication that his own conduct might have worn their patience thin.”
The grievance was dismissed.
Mark Rogers is a writer and editor who specializes in labour relations and occupational health and safety.
