The grievor had not followed procedures meant to protect food safety. He had been disciplined earlier for the same failure. His age, length of service and sincere apology were not enough to tip the balance in his favour.
A worker at meat a processing plant was fired for repeatedly failing to follow the company’s processing procedures.
Mr. Q worked as a smokehouse operator at a meat processing plant. Hired on Sept. 24, 2007, he was a short-service worker with 2½ years at the company when he was fired on April 8, 2010.
As a smokehouse operator, a key component of Mr. Q’s job was to manage and monitor temperature charts. Part of this task entailed taking the temperature of the meat during its processing and recording the numbers on the charts.
Accurate temperature recording is a critical technique for managing food safety. Proper records are necessary to ensure the meat is maintained at safe temperatures throughout the various stages of processing.
Mr. Q was aware of the importance of food safety and hygiene and that it was necessary for him to perform his job diligently. Mr. Q was aware of the procedures. He was also aware of the rules. Company policy prohibited any falsification, altering or misrepresentation of official company food safety or hygiene records.
On March 25, 2009, the company discovered that instead of actually taking the temperature of the meat, Mr. Q was instead entering estimated temperatures into the records.
Serious misconduct
With a union steward present, Mr. Q was made aware he had engaged in serious misconduct. He was misleading the company into believing processes were being followed as required and the product was safe when neither was necessarily true. Mr. Q was reprimanded and warned against any repeat of such actions.
On Aug. 15 and 22, 2009, Mr. Q again put meat from the smoker directly into the cooler without checking the temperature of the meat. He again logged estimated temperatures into the records. Mr. Q was reminded about the importance of food safety and the requirement he follow established procedures and policies. He was suspended for five days without pay. He was also told if he repeated this mistake he would face discipline and possible discharge.
On April 1, 2010, a supervisor noticed Mr. Q had again entered made-up numbers into the records. Mr. Q had entered the numbers on the charts before he took the meat out of the cooler. When questioned, he explained he knew the temperature of the meat by how long it had been in the cooler. He also said if he had taken the time to manually check the temperatures as required, he would not have been in time to move sausage into the smokehouse before it burned.
Mr. Q was fired. The union grieved.
The union argued Mr. Q’s personal circumstances, if not the length of his service, warranted consideration as mitigating factors.
Sincere apology
Mr. Q was honest about what he had done. He had made a sincere apology and presented a heartfelt personal appeal for reinstatement. At 57 years of age, securing alternative work would be a challenge for Mr. Q, who had a child in university to support and aging parents.
The grievance was denied.
“The Grievor knew the Employer’s safety and hygiene rules, among them the requirement to take the temperature of the meat after it had been in the cooler and the obligation not to falsify the entries he made. Doing so is necessary to ensure the health of the meat. The meat quality is fundamentally important to the Employer’s business and to its reputation. It cannot afford to have the meat temperatures neglected, as the Grievor did repeatedly.”
Given Mr. Q’s prior conduct, the employer could have no confidence he would abide by company procedures and policies in future, the Arbitrator said. Despite repeated warnings, Mr. Q was unable to appreciate the importance of following critical food safety procedures.
The termination was warranted.
