A worker was fired after starting a fight at the workplace and then lying about his role in the fight.
Two workers — a plant labourer and a process operator — were fired for violating the employer’s policy on workplace violence following an altercation on November 3, 2009. One of the workers grieved his termination while the other did not.
Hired in 1993, S.K. — the grievor — was a process operator at a food processing company.
Words were exchanged when S.K. crossed paths with R.G. in a corridor at the plant near the company Human Resources office on November 3, 2009.
S.K. asked R.G. what his problem was. S.K. then inquired as to why R.G. was staring at him. R.G. responded in kind.
S.K. then advised R.G. to watch himself adding that he was “a f——— a—h—-.”
“Hey G.I. Joe”
A short time later, while R.G. was passing S.K.’s aisle in the locker room, S.K. yelled out to R.G. (who had spent time in the Canadian Forces) “Hey G.I. Joe.” S.K. then followed R.G. to his locker.
When R.G. turned around — coffee in hand — S.K. shoved him violently into the locker, spilling coffee everywhere. S.K. then offered to “settle this now.”
R.G. demurred, palms out and indicated that neither the timing nor the location were appropriate for a fight. Nevertheless, S.K. swung at R.G. who then retaliated.
R.G. landed one or two punches sending S.K. to the floor. When the shop steward intervened to stop the fight, S.K. was on his back with his shirt pulled up over his head. R.G. was straddling him and landing blows.
Once separated, S.K. screamed that he was going to have R.G.’s job. Both then went to human resources. S.K. had a cut to his mouth and required stitches. R.G. had a grazed cheek.
Following company policy, the director of human resources investigated the incident. It was her decision to fire both workers.
S.K. grieved his termination.
Alleged sucker-punch
S.K. said that R.G. started the fight. There was bad blood between them, S.K. said, stemming from an earlier slow pitch tournament. Since then, S.K. indicated that he was put off by R.G.’s staring. S.K. acknowledged confronting R.G. in the locker room but said that his invitation to settle the matter was an attempt to start a conversation, not a fight. He denied throwing a punch. He said that he only pushed back at R.G. who was pushing him. S.K. said that he only pushed back in order to keep distance between them and that it was R.G.'s momentum that had carried him into the locker. R.G. had then sucker-punched S.K. as he was backing up, S.K. said.
S.K.’s account of how the fight started was not credible, the Arbitrator said. S.K. had denied pushing R.G. at all in his initial account of the incident to the police, the Arbitrator pointed out. He told the same story to management. He continued to dissemble, the Arbitrator said.
To reconcile the evidence with S.K.'s story, it was necessary to believe that R.G. was pushing and threatening S.K. with one arm while holding a cup of coffee in his other hand. “This is a hard sell,” the Arbitrator said.
“I have reached the conclusion that the version of the fight [according to S.K.] is still not accurate, he is still not telling the truth, and he is still trying to put himself in the best possible light. I believe he now admits to the push into the locker because it was heard by at least two witnesses.”
His own testimony indicated that S.K. instigated the first confrontation in the hallway, the Arbitrator said. S.K. continued his provocations in the locker room with a sarcastic reference to R.G. as “G.I. Joe.” Finally, S.K. pushed R.G. into the locker.
Despite his seniority and partial admissions, the Arbitrator did not credit S.K.’s potential for rehabilitation. “That would be more convincing if I believed he told the truth about exactly what happened during the fight and [admitted] that he did provoke it and that he did start it and was responsible for it.” However, the Arbitrator said, “The grievor seems to understand none of that and none of that is forthcoming.”
The grievance was dismissed.
