The grievor had a history of aggressive behaviour toward supervisors. When a supervisor came to find out how he was dealing with a production problem, he broke a lock to enter a restricted area and clear the jam. The arbitrator found a pattern of unacceptable interaction with superiors.
A plant operator with a significant record of discipline was fired for smashing a lock with a stick to gain access to a restricted area. The employer said the act was a culminating incident that called for termination.
Hired in 2004, G.S. was an Inlet Operator in the heat treatment area of a plant that produced high quality, seamless pipe used in the energy industry.
The plant housed many complex and potentially hazardous machines and operations.
G.S.’s job was to shepherd and track lengths of pipe weighing up to 700 kilos from bins onto a conveyor and then into a furnace. For safety reasons, G.S.’s area was fenced off and the access gates were secured with “Q locks.”
The employer subscribed to a regime of progressive discipline. When G.S. was fired on Aug. 23, 2010 for an incident that occurred in July, he had a significant number of incidents of discipline on his record.
The letter of termination referenced those incidents.
In 2007, G.S. received a one-day suspension for making threatening and disrespectful remarks to a supervisor after being found without safety glasses. He received another one-day suspension in October 2008 for aggressive and harassing late night phone calls that he made to a supervisor concerning a grievance.
Aggressive and threatening voicemails
In November and December 2009, G.S. again left aggressive and threatening voicemails for managers.
G.S. was assessed a five-day suspension in February 2010 for intentionally leaving grease-stained gloves and a sarcastic note on the computer keyboard of a team leader.
Along with the five-day suspension, G.S. was cautioned that his aggressive and threatening behaviour was perceived to be escalating and that the suspension should serve as a final warning that future infractions would result in his termination.
G.S.’s shift on July 14, 2010 had been difficult with many jams and pipe pile ups on the conveyor. At one point, G.S. called over the radio from his workstation for crane assistance to help him with a jam.
Hearing the frustration in his voice, a supervisor went to investigate. When the supervisor arrived on the scene he found G.S. standing outside the locked gate with the “pipestick” in his hand that is used to clear jams. When the supervisor asked G.S. what he intended to do about the jam, G.S. turned and smashed the “Q lock” with the pipestick, opened the gate and then proceeded to clear the jam.
The supervisor was intimidated by G.S.’s actions and entered the incident into the employer’s safety reporting system.
The incident was investigated. G.S. challenged the supervisor’s version of events. G.S. alleged that the supervisor was harassing him and that he had “opened” the lock with a tool.
The decision was made to terminate G.S. He was confrontational at the termination meeting. He refused to co-operate and insisted on the presence of the most senior members of management. He accused the employer of trying to “lock him in.” G.S. then called the police to the meeting.
G.S. was fired.
Uncompromising view of labour relations
The union said that the employer’s characterization of the culminating incident was overblown. There was no safety breach: though the gate was locked, it was not “locked out.” G.S. had acted spontaneously to address a pile up and G.S. had replaced the lock shortly afterwards.
Some of the friction between G.S. and the employer were due to his limited English language skills. He also reflected a more “uncompromising view of labour relations” as was common in his native Argentina, the union said. The union charged too that some of the suspensions arose from G.S.’s activities as a union steward.
The Arbitrator upheld the termination.
Even if G.S.’s rationale for smashing the lock was credible and not a breach of lockout procedures per se, the act was intimidating to the supervisor who had experienced G.S.’s rage before and was intimidated by him. Given all the alternatives available to G.S. in that moment, the Arbitrator said that G.S.’s actions could not be seen as other than “a message to [the supervisor] that the conventions or boundaries of appropriate employee conduct were not applicable to the grievor.”
Whether or not it was G.S.’s intention to intimidate his supervisor, his actions on that day fell into a “well established pattern of intolerable conduct,” the Arbitrator said.
G.S. compounded that perception with his performance during the meeting held to investigate the incident. He refused to acknowledge his actions or apologize. Instead, G.S. sought to blame the supervisor who he claimed was harassing him.
G.S.’s termination meeting featured more of the same, the Arbitrator said. G.S. refused to acknowledge the employer’s authority and demonstrated a “fundamental inability to acknowledge the basic tenets of the employment relationship.”
The grievance was dismissed.
