The grievor acted in an aggressive and threatening manner towards colleagues and a supervisor. He was terminated. The arbitrator ruled that the grievor's short service, lack of remorse and failure to attend anger management sessions ruled out mitigation.
A worker at a manufacturing plant was fired after he lost his cool and threw a metal pipe at a co-worker.
S.V. was hired in October 2009 to work as a Manufacturing Operator at a plant that produced automotive exhaust systems.
S.V. was on the plant floor working early on the morning of Nov. 4, 2011, when a fellow operator approached and asked S.V. to switch machines.
Though switching machines was a routine procedure at the plant, S.V. considered the request to be unfair. He refused.
The operator then reported S.V.’s refusal to another operator close by who questioned S.V. in a loud voice.
S.V. became angry as the two operators continued to talk. S.V. picked up a metal pipe that was six-and-a-half centimeters in diameter and about half a metre long. S.V. threw the pipe at the operators; it landed short and came to rest near their feet.
Agitated, aggressive
S.V. remained in an agitated state during his subsequent meeting with his supervisor. He made a number of aggressive approaches and punctuated his departure from the meeting by throwing his gloves and sleeve protectors in the general direction of his supervisor.
S.V. was fired. The union grieved.
The union agreed S.V.’s conduct was unacceptable and significant discipline was warranted. However, the union said termination was an excessive response in the circumstances and a conditional reinstatement on a “last chance” basis with no compensation was a more appropriate penalty.
The employer said termination was not the only penalty for acts of harassment and violence but it was the most likely penalty. In this case it was the appropriate one.
There was little provocation to account for S.V.’s behaviour. S.V.’s actions were not premeditated but they were not completely spontaneous either: he did not reflexively throw a tool that was in his hand. As well, after the incident he remained in an agitated state and was aggressive, insolent and insubordinate towards his supervisor. He was a relatively short service employee and though he had restarted anger management training in the wake of his termination, the effort was “too little, too late,” the employer said.
Implied threat of violence
The Arbitrator agreed. S.V. responded disproportionately to what was a minor provocation at most. While his actions created the possibility of injury to co-workers, the threat was not that great and no injuries ensued. However, it was the element of intimidation and the implied threat of violence that was the most troubling factor of S.V.’s behaviour, the Arbitrator said.
Moreover, S.V. continued to display that anger after the initial incident. He was both aggressive and insubordinate with his supervisor in the post-incident meeting.
S.V.’s short service was also a significant factor. This was not an isolated, anomalous incident in a long career. S.V. had little “trust equity” in reserve and no real track record to stack up against this incident.
The Arbitrator noted too that while the sunset clause on discipline in the collective agreement shielded S.V.’s disciplinary record beyond 12 months, it was apparent S.V.’s participation in anger management counselling was a requirement that had been imposed more than 12 months earlier. The Arbitrator also noted S.V. had stopped attending those counselling sessions without telling either the union or the employer.
The Arbitrator was also troubled by S.V.’s lack of contrition and inability to explain his behaviour towards his supervisor. S.V. acknowledged his conduct was wrong, but he had made no effort to apologize directly to his co-workers or to his supervisor.
“A failure to apologize or otherwise express remorse is not fatal to a plea for a lesser penalty, but it weighs against it. In this case I am left puzzled why the grievor made no effort in this regard, directly or indirectly, not even at the hearing.”
The Arbitrator was not unsympathetic to the union’s hope that a long suspension might serve to transform S.V.
“Hope is not enough, however. I am obliged to weigh the evidence to deduce, as best I can, what one might expect from this grievor in future. On the evidence before me I am not persuaded that the risk of a similar or more serious incident is sufficiently low that the grievor’s former co-workers, supervisors and employer should be exposed to that risk.”
The grievance was dismissed.
