Two months after being disciplined for flagrant disregard of plant safety rules, a warehouse worker was terminated following a further safety violation and for counselling a work slow-down.
A warehouse worker for a logistics outsourcing company, W.C. had seven years’ experience and a history of committing workplace safety violations.
His personnel file included a note from 2007 that referenced “multiple incidents in which [W.C.] violated the established standards of behaviour including a display of flagrant disregard for safety rules.”
Following an unspecified incident in 2008, W.C. was again cited for “flagrant disregard of safety rules” and given a “decision-making” leave — the last step before termination.
As a condition of his continued employment, W.C. was required to sign off on an undertaking that committed him to demonstrating proper regard for instruction and the well-being of his fellow employees. The agreement also required W.C. to observe all safety rules and practices and included the proviso that his failure to comply with the agreement could result in termination.
W.C. was fired two months after signing off on that agreement.
Following a report that a lift-truck had been left in an unsafe manner — parked up against some racks with its forks sticking into the aisle — a supervisor investigated. Following a review of the security video, the supervisor determined that W.C. had deliberately parked the vehicle in that manner before leaving at the end of the day shift.
“Overdoing” it
In consultations with the oncoming afternoon shift worker who made the report, it was also revealed to the supervisor that W.C. had suggested on a number of occasions to both the worker and his colleague that they were “overdoing” it and that W.C. had advised them to slow down.
Called to a meeting the next day to answer to these allegations, W.C. denied that he had asked anyone to slow down. However, he did acknowledge that he had parked the lift truck in an unsafe manner. He said that he parked the vehicle in that way so as to prevent employees from other departments from taking the lift truck. He admitted that he had not raised this issue as a problem with anyone in management before.
Following consultations between the shift supervisor, the director of operations and the manager of HR, W.C. was fired. The letter of termination cited inappropriate behaviour and disregard for health and safety.
The union grieved, asserting that while some discipline was warranted, termination was too severe a penalty for a worker with seven years’ seniority.
Compelled to make a determination as to credibility in the face of W.C.’s denial of the charge that he had counselled a slow-down, the Arbitrator preferred the testimony of the shift supervisor and the coworkers who made the allegation.
Job in jeopardy
The safety violation regarding the lift truck was not denied. While the Arbitrator agreed with the union that the offence by itself was not on the serious end of the spectrum of safety offences, it was troubling because it was so unnecessary and occurred so soon after W.C. was put on notice that his job was in jeopardy if he did not “shape up.”
“As an isolated incident, the … lift truck safety violation would not have constituted just cause for particularly significant discipline, much less discharge. However, this was not an isolated incident, and came hard on the heels of a decision-making leave imposed for previous safety related misconduct and a clear warning to the grievor that his employment was in jeopardy. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the grievor’s misconduct constituted just cause for very significant discipline,” the Arbitrator said.
The Arbitrator also concluded that it was more probable than not that W.C. had counselled a slow-down — a serious employment offence also justifying significant discipline in the circumstances.
“I am satisfied that the grievor in this case is guilty of two serious misconducts. Whether either one of them individually constituted just cause for discharge is irrelevant because I am satisfied that taken together they certainly do.”
The grievance was dismissed.
