Despite the grievor's admission of guilt and contrition, the arbitrator found that his failure was too serious, and placed the employer under too much jeopardy from the impact of a mistake of this sort.
A worker at an ice cream factory was fired after it was discovered he mistakenly used an egg base to mix a batch of ice cream.
R.B. began part-time as a seasonal worker at an ice cream factory in 2005. He moved to full-time in 2009. R.B. had about two-and-a-half years’ seniority when he was fired in 2011. He had a written warning on his record for using the wrong ingredients in a product.
R.B. worked the afternoon shift on Friday, Jan. 28, 2011. As a mix-maker, R.B. was responsible for a number of tasks in the mix department, including mixing the raw materials to make the base for ice cream and adding the flavouring to the ice cream.
The factory used two bases for ice cream. One used egg white; the other — a non-allergenic base — relied on coconut white.
For his Friday shift, R.B. was tasked to mix and flavour a batch of ice cream using the non-allergenic, coconut white base. Instead, he drew 5,500 litres of the egg white base for the mix. He compounded his mixing error with an administrative error when he made a log entry to show he had used the coconut base.
There was no production on the weekend; however, questions arose when one of R.B.’s colleagues discovered there was inadequate stock of the egg white base to mix a batch he was working on, despite the fact the records indicated there should have been.
Inquiries were made and records were checked in order to reconcile the discrepancy.
15,000 tubs of ice cream destroyed
During his next shift, R.B. told his supervisor he had mistakenly drawn the wrong mix. The employer was compelled to destroy 15,000 tubs of the mislabeled ice cream.
When asked about how the mistake happened, R.B. did not have a coherent explanation. He said the mix maker from the previous shift had told him he was to use the egg base because the coconut base may have been contaminated with egg base anyway.
R.B. was fired. The union grieved.
There was cause to terminate R.B., the employer said. He committed serious errors regardless of which story was chosen. The employer believed R.B. had made a serious error, which he then attempted to cover up with a false log entry.
However, even if R.B.’s story that he had been told to use the egg base was true, there were still serious problems. The person alleged by R.B. to have given those instructions did not testify and, in any case, he was not authorized to give that kind of order.
It was obvious the order did not make much sense. In the circumstances, it was reasonable to expect R.B. would check to make sure the instructions were correct. He did not. Then, R.B. logged that he used the coconut base when in fact he did not. R.B. only came forward, the employer said, when word started to get around that 5,500 litres of egg base was not accounted for.
R.B. had made a mistake but he had come forward and alerted the company, the union said. There was no evidence that R.B. engaged in a cover-up. He had made an incorrect log entry, but it was not uncommon to fill out the log in advance of drawing product and there was no policy against that. The union said termination was excessive in the circumstances.
The Arbitrator disagreed. R.B. had acknowledged his mistake and he was remorseful but that wasn’t enough. R.B. had made serious errors. If the ice cream had left the plant, a national recall may have been necessary. Someone with an egg allergy might have consumed the product thinking it was safe.
“[R.B.] ignored the systems in place at the plant that are designed to prevent exactly this kind of occurrence. In the food production sector, employers are entitled to expect that employees will adhere strictly to standards and procedures aimed at protecting the health and safety of the public.”
Failed at core duties
That R.B. compounded the mixing error with an incorrect log entry was also problematic. Whatever his intent in filling out the log in advance of drawing the egg base, he failed to amend the log to make it reflect what actually happened. The fact there was no specific policy against filling out the log in advance was not helpful to R.B. There was no need for such a policy, the Arbitrator said — the very purpose of the log was to record what an employee had actually done.
“[T]he mistakes [R.B.] made were not related to matters at the periphery of his job. Rather, his failures were at the core of his duties. Central to his tasks is ensuring that the right ingredients are being put into the product, and that he accurately has recorded what ingredients he has put where. That he failed to do so in these circumstances casts serious doubt on whether he can reliably perform the job in the future.”
R.B. was not a long-service employee. There were no compelling mitigating circumstances to warrant altering the penalty.
The grievance was dismissed.
