Plant safety, knowledge of policy, unsupervised work all trump grievor's years of service
A worker in a nylon manufacturing plant was fired after a supervisor caught him smoking a cigarette in one of the plant washrooms.
E.W. had 10 years combined service with both the current and previous operators of the nylon manufacturing plant where he worked.
At 9:45 am on March 4, 2010 a supervisor smelled and then observed smoke coming from a stall in one of the plant washrooms. Confronted, E.W. acknowledged that he had been smoking. He noted at the time that his habit made it difficult for him to go for 12 hours without a cigarette.
E.W. was taken immediately to a meeting with another supervisor. At that meeting he acknowledged that he was aware of the site ban on smoking. He supplied some other information regarding his smoking habits and was asked to leave the plant.
E.W. was fired and the union grieved.
10,000 per cent compliance
Before the Arbitrator, the employer argued that termination was warranted. Antismoking rules were in place in order to ensure plant safety. Employees were aware of the consequences of violating the smoking ban. Integrity and compliance were key company values. Employees were encouraged to strive for 10,000 per cent compliance and achieve 100 per cent compliance. The starting point for violating the company’s smoking ban was termination.
The company overstated the safety risks, the union said, noting that the plant had operated without incident before there was any smoking ban. Since the incident E.W. had taken steps to eliminate his dependency on cigarettes and, in view of his 10 years of good service, termination was excessive in the circumstances.
It was true that other workers had been terminated for the same offence, the union said, but it was also true that some workers had received only suspensions for violating the smoking ban. E.W. was a good worker who had been honest and forthright in his testimony.
The Arbitrator upheld the termination.
“It is with some considerable regret that I must uphold the Company’s decision to terminate [E.W.]. In the case at hand, the Company did consider all the relevant factors, including [E.W.’s] almost 10 years of good service to the Company. Indeed, [counsel for the employer] acknowledged on the Company’s behalf its regret in losing [E.W.’s] service in this way; he was a recognized asset to the Company. Additionally, I was impressed by the forthright manner in which [E.W.] responded to his supervisors and to the questions put to him in his testimony.”
Nevertheless, was not persuaded that E.W. could be counted on to comply with the ban in future.
Risk too great
“[A]side from his good intentions, there is no principled basis upon which I can be satisfied that he will not return to smoking covertly in the plant when the craving arises. The risk is simply too great and this plant is simply too vast to be adequately policed. Accordingly, the Company’s concerns that he would, if not terminated, find another spot to smoke when needed were not without foundation.
“Although I am sympathetic to [E.W.] who was strikingly honest in his testimony and who has put in 10 good years with the Company, my sympathy alone is not a sound basis upon which to overturn the Company’s decision. Furthermore, were I to reinstate [E.W.] in the circumstances, it is my view that it would send the wrong message to his co-workers in the plant both about the safety risks of smoking and also about the employment consequences of doing so.
“In all the circumstances, I choose not to exercise my discretion to set aside the penalty of termination imposed by the Company.”
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Invista and Kingston Independent Nylon Workers’ Union. Joseph D. Carrier — Sole Arbitrator. Robert Little for the Employer and Ernie Schirru for the Union. December 4, 2010. 12 pp.
