Nova Scotia worker to be reinstated despite safety violation
A Nova Scotia arbitrator has ordered an employer to reinstate a forklift operator fired for failing to report rack damage at its cold-storage warehouse, ruling the termination excessive.
In a March 20, 2026 decision, arbitrator Augustus Richardson found Lineage Inc. had bypassed its contractual commitment to progressive discipline.
"It is to be hoped that this award will remind the grievor and his co-workers of the importance of reporting damage to the racking system as and when it happens or is discovered."
Damage by forklift driver
On July 18, 2025, Sean Sanderson, a receiver/shipper with roughly three years of service at Lineage's Dartmouth, N.S. warehouse, accidentally put his forklift into neutral instead of reverse, slamming it backward into a pallet under the racking system.
He glanced back, saw minimal damage, and kept working without inspecting the rack or filing a report.
A contractor later found a vertical upright in the newly installed racking had been significantly bent. Warehouse manager Joseph Kaiser's incident report recommended "Training/retraining of involved worker" and rated the likelihood of recurrence as "rare," citing Sanderson's character. In cross-examination, Kaiser said he "didn't think it would happen again."
Zero-tolerance policy
Lineage had announced a zero-tolerance policy at a July 10 toolbox meeting. After the incident, regional director Sean Little decided to terminate the driver’s employment.
The July 30 dismissal letter stated: "We have no alternative but to terminate your employment for cause."
However, UNIFOR Local 1944 grieved on Aug. 6, acknowledging that while some discipline was warranted, termination was excessive.
No automatic termination in policy
Richardson found a fundamental problem with how Lineage applied its policy. The zero-tolerance letter sent to employees on Aug. 10, 2025, after the dismissal had already occurred, never guaranteed automatic termination.
"In effect, the employer was simply saying that failure to report would result in discipline. The question of what discipline remained in the balance."
The collective agreement reinforced that conclusion. Article 5.14 committed Lineage to progressive discipline, describing "progressive steps beginning with the employee receiving verbal warnings, leading through written warnings, suspension and/or discharged." Article 4.02 framed safety violations as grounds for discipline "including but not limited to, written warning, suspension and dismissal."
Richardson found the employer had disregarded both provisions. It had not considered its progressive discipline commitment, that this was Sanderson's first offense, or that Kaiser had recommended retraining. He noted no employee had been terminated for unreported racking damage in 23 years of warehouse operations.
Reinstated, but with clear warning
Sanderson was ordered reinstated as of March 20, 2026, without loss of seniority but without compensation for lost time. Richardson drew a clear line between negligent failure to report and intentional interference with safety, finding Sanderson's conduct fell well short of cases upholding summary dismissal.
Those cases, Richardson noted, involved employees who deliberately disabled safety devices or consciously defied safety rules. Sanderson had no prior disciplinary record and had previously reported incidents. Kaiser described him as a good worker who could be depended on for overtime; Maddox called him an excellent worker.
