Termination warranted for insubordination

A produce clerk at a grocery store was fired for insubordination after repeated run-ins with her manager.

D.J. began working in the produce department at the Superstore in 2005.

Her job involved trimming and preparing produce and stocking coolers.

She was described as a hard worker with a good record of attendance. However, there was discipline on her record, and discipline pending, when she was fired on April 19, 2012.

D.J. had a difficult working relationship with M.C., a produce manager and her direct supervisor.

D.J. perceived that M.C. favoured other employees over her and that he treated her unfairly with respect to the distribution of work and the allocation of shifts.

Accusations of racism

D.J. repeatedly accused management, and M.C. in particular, of harassment and of subjecting her to discriminatory treatment based on racial animus. D.J. also accused M.C. of threatening her.

These tensions in the relationship caused numerous flare-ups, some of them in front of staff and customers.

D.J. returned to work on May 18, 2011 after a suspension for such an incident that occurred on April 10. During that incident, D.J. screamed and yelled at M.C. in front of staff and called him a racist. D.J. would not desist and would not leave the floor until police came. The employer contemplated terminating D.J. at that time but instead gave her one more chance issued in a formal warning letter.

The letter asserted that D.J. was creating a hostile work environment by “repeatedly accusing management of harassment, discrimination, racism, violence and failing to follow directions given to you by management.”

The letter, which was also grieved by the union, warned D.J. that any further incidents of inappropriate conduct or failure to follow instructions would lead to termination.

Another incident occurred about seven months later on Dec. 18, 2011. D.J. became irritated at what she felt was an unfair distribution of work. Again she began screaming and yelling at M.C., calling him a racist and accusing him of harassment. D.J.’s diatribe took place in front of new staff.

On Dec. 23, D.J. and her union representative were called into a meeting with managers and human resources staff.

D.J. was given a letter confirming that she was being suspended pending an investigation into the latest incident. D.J. refused to sign the acknowledgement that she had received the letter.

Death threat alleged

She also said that if she died that night it would be M.C.’s fault. D.J.’s comment was initially perceived as a suicide threat. However, she clarified her statement and accused M.C. of threatening to kill her. D.J. left the meeting. The employer contacted the police. The employer conducted an investigation and on April 19, 2012, D.J. was fired.

The union grieved.

The employer said D.J.’s behaviour had undermined the employment relationship. She had made false allegations against management and co-workers. Her conduct constituted insubordination and termination was warranted.

The union said that the employer had skipped some steps and failed to follow its own progressive discipline regime. The union conceded that there were cases where the progressive discipline regime need not be followed, however it questioned whether or not this was such a case and argued that D.J. should be given the benefit of the doubt. The union also said that factors such as D.J.’s length of service should count in her favour in order to mitigate the penalty of termination, since she was generally a good and reliable employee, the union said.

The Arbitrator upheld the termination, characterizing D.J.’s behaviour during the April 10 incident as “blatantly insubordinate conduct.” She was also unrepentant.

Unacceptable conduct

“The grievor confirmed at the hearing that she understood that she was being given a final warning. She knew what it was for and what the consequences of any repetition would be. However, the grievor also made it clear that, while she was glad to get back to work, she considered the discipline unfair, taking consolation from the fact that the Union was grieving on her behalf. She gave no indication, either to management at the time or to this board at the hearing that she recognized in any way why her conduct was wrong. She clearly maintained her view that she was being picked on and discriminated against.”

Discipline was warranted, the Arbitrator said, and termination was appropriate in the circumstances.

“[D.J.’s] conduct went well beyond causing a fuss or having a disagreement. It is simply not acceptable in a retail grocery store to have yelling and screaming matches with one’s supervisor in front of customers. It is not acceptable to include within such conduct generalized allegations of racism, abuse and discrimination. Those are serious allegations which, when true, deserve firm and swift condemnation. When not true or randomly thrown out for effect they are extremely damaging to any ability for those involved to keep working together.”

The Arbitrator said there was no realistic prospect of repairing the employment relationship.

The grievance was dismissed.