After an altercation with his supervisor, the grievor was suspended. He claimed that he was unable to understand what was happening because he was not given an interpreter during the disciplinary meeting. The arbitrator found his language skills were sufficient and that there had been no harassment.
A cleaner at an abattoir challenged two suspensions that were imposed on him and grieved that the suspensions constituted discrimination and harassment on the part of the employer.
G.Z. worked the overnight shift in the sanitation department at an abattoir. While G.Z. claimed he had worked for the employer since 1987, the disciplinary record filed by the employer dated G.Z.’s hire in 2005. G.Z.’s English language skills were limited.
G.Z. received a one-day suspension for his alleged behaviour on July 16, 2010. A supervisor said that G.Z. had aggressively come at him with his chest out while giving him the (middle) finger. A coworker stepped between the two and calmed G.Z. down. The supervisor said that G.Z. was angry over criticism that he had returned late from break, that he had failed to complete a task as ordered and that he had taken too long in the washroom.
There was another incident involving the same supervisor two months later. At about 1 a.m., the supervisor and another worker were inspecting the line. The supervisor asked G.Z. to perform some additional cleaning on the line and directed him to use the high-pressure hose.
G.Z. retrieved the hose and then proceeded to spray both the supervisor and the other worker. The supervisor turned off the hose and ordered G.Z. to accompany him to the office. G.Z. was suspended for five days for intentionally committing an unsafe act.
G.Z. challenged the suspensions and filed a grievance claiming that the employer was discriminating against him.
Testimony ambiguous
The Arbitrator threw out the first, one-day suspension, ruling that the employer had not met the burden of proof to show that G.Z. had acted as alleged. G.Z.’s testimony about the incident was at odds with the testimony of the supervisor. Witness testimony was also ambiguous. The worker who intervened was equivocal about the level of G.Z.’s aggression and could not remember G.Z. giving the finger to the supervisor.
The second incident was a different story. Both the supervisor and the worker were adamant that G.Z. had intentionally hosed them down. G.Z. denied intentionally spraying his colleagues. In his version, he retrieved the hose as ordered and began spraying where the supervisor had directed. As the supervisor and the coworker were standing about a foot from the indicated target, they may have received some incidental spray.
The Arbitrator said that even if he preferred G.Z.’s version, the result would be the same. Pointing a high-pressure hose filled with very hot water and letting it loose so near to where other employees were standing was dangerous and unacceptable behaviour. The five-day suspension assessed on G.Z. was warranted.
The Arbitrator rejected G.Z.’s claims that he was harassed and discriminated against.
G.Z. disagreed with his supervisor’s characterization of the circumstances that led to the first suspension. G.Z. also felt that the way that the discipline was handled was unjust and discriminatory.
However, there were no facts to support such an argument, the Arbitrator said.
G.Z. was upset that he was not disciplined until 10 days after the July 16 incident. The delay was not discriminatory.
Language not the problem
The Arbitrator also did not accept G.Z.’s characterization of the post-incident interview. G.Z. said that the fact that he was not provided with an interpreter was intentional and was an attempt by the supervisor to cause G.Z. to make a mistake in his account of events in order to justify the initial suspension.
The Arbitrator disagreed. Language was not the issue.
“[O]n the evidence presented at the hearing, including that of the Grievor, it was very clear that the Grievor knew exactly what he had been instructed to do [on July 16]. He provided an excuse to [his supervisor] as to why the work had not yet been done which was simply not accepted. There is nothing in the evidence that in any way demonstrates that a language problem was in play on July 16th that required an interpreter. Therefore, any claim of discrimination on that basis cannot be sustained.”
There was no evidence to suggest that either the employer or the supervisor harassed or discriminated against G.Z. or treated him inappropriately or differently than any other employee, the Arbitrator said.
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 175 & 633 and Quality Meat Packers. Larry Steinberg — Sole Arbitrator. Marcia Barry for the Union. Daniel L. Leone for the Employer. August 10, 2011. 16 pp. Full Decision Order No. LVI3972-1.
