The grievor was alleged to have threatened to bring a gun to work. She denied making the statement. The union argued that the threat, if it had been made, was not serious. The arbitrator found that making the threat and then denying it damaged the employment relationship beyond repair.
A worker was fired after she threatened to bring a gun into work. The worker denied making the threat and the union grieved.
F.S. worked for a retail grocery chain. She was hired in 1980. In 1985 she transferred to another outlet, where she worked until she was fired on June 19, 2012.
There was discipline on F.S.’s record.
In 2001 she received a written warning for using profanity. In 2003, F.S. was assessed a three-day suspension for gross insubordination for addressing a supervisor in a disrespectful manner and making a rude gesture. F.S. was also given a one-day suspension in 2006 after she said, “fuck you” to the Assistant Manager. There was also a warning on her record from 2009 in response to a “no show.”
In April 2010, F.S. began working in the Price Change department as part of a permanent accommodation. K.H. — a friend and colleague of F.S. — was also on permanent accommodation.
Before the May long weekend in 2010, K.H. was informed that she was being transferred because the employer could no longer provide the necessary hours to accommodate her at that location.
F.S. was upset at the treatment of her friend and concerned about her own prospects in the face of what appeared to be an impending reduction in available hours.
F.S. voiced her concerns about these issues on June 8, 2012 during an impromptu exchange she had with K.K., the store’s Operations Manager.
Took umbrage
F.S. took umbrage at what she perceived to be management’s ineptitude with respect to its dealings with her accommodation needs and those of her friend K.H. F.S. dismissed the efforts of a series of earlier joint employer/ management meetings to improve communications about such workplace issues: “you guys can jam them up your ass,” she is reported to have said.
F.S. also addressed her concerns about the possibility that her accommodated hours could be reduced. She reportedly told K.K. that if she didn’t get her 40 hours per week, she would find her boyfriend’s gun and come into the store. (F.S. was in a relationship with a police officer.)
K.K. was unnerved by the meeting and later wrote down notes about the exchange in her Daytimer. K.K. also reported the exchange to her manager.
F.S. was interviewed about the incident at a June 13 meeting.
F.S. acknowledged there was a discussion about hours of work. However, she denied making any reference to a gun. Her alleged statement was reformulated and put before F.S. in a number of different ways: four times she denied making the statement.
F.S. was fired.
The employer argued that termination was justified. F.S. uttered a threat that contemplated extreme violence. She compounded that misconduct by refusing to own up to it. Her failure to acknowledge the threat left her unable to retract the threat and therefore unable to apologize and to show proper remorse. F.S.’s disciplinary record was also an aggravating factor in this case, the employer said.
The union argued that the employer had not proved its case. The union offered three potential scenarios to explain what happened. First, the union said, it was possible that K.K. misheard F.S. and that no threat was uttered. In that case there would be no cause for discipline and F.S. should be reinstated. The second possibility was that F.S. had made a threat but that she had no memory of it, which meant that the threat was not credible. If that was true, discipline was warranted but not termination. The third possibility was that F.S. had intentionally lied. In that case termination was warranted, the union said.
“Assertive,” “passionate” and “blunt”
The Arbitrator chose option three and upheld the termination.
F.S.’s denials did not meet the accepted test of credibility as articulated in Faryna v. Chorny. F.S. was, by her own admission, “assertive,” the Arbitrator said. Her friends called her “passionate,” “blunt” and not particularly circumspect when speaking her mind. These assessments were borne out by F.S.’s disciplinary record and other statements attributed to her.
It was true that the employer demonstrated by its actions that it did not rate the threat as extremely serious. F.S. was not immediately suspended. She continued to work and no overt actions were taken to protect customers and staff in the wake of the incident.
Nevertheless, the Arbitrator said, “in today’s workplace any threat is serious.”
“In addition, F.S. simply denies making the threat. F.S. denied it four times during the investigative meeting; and, before me at this hearing. In addition to concluding that F.S. uttered a serious threat, I conclude that she has not been forthright with the Employer or this Board. Given that the threat was uttered and that F.S. was not forthright with the Employer and this Board, and considering her past record, I conclude that the employment relationship is irreparable. Therefore discharge is not excessive.”
The grievance was dismissed.
