You make the call
This instalment of You Make the Call features an electrical utility worker who brought some booze on a trip across the border to provide assistance to an area that lost power from a storm.
The 54-year-old worker was a front-line manager for Hydro One, an electricity transmission and distribution utility serving Ontario, in Beachville, Ont. He first joined Hydro One in July 1986 and became a front-line manager on a temporary basis in 2016 with the position becoming permanent in 2017. He had no discipline on his record and was regularly trained on Hydro One’s code of conduct — which specifically prohibited “drinking intoxicants or using illegal drugs in the workplace” or bringing them “to any Hydro One workplace” — and safety rules.
On March 3, 2018, the worker was asked to travel to Baltimore, Md. with other Hydro One employees to help with restoring power to the area after a major storm. The worker agreed and planned to meet with other Hydro One employees in St. Catherines, Ont. that evening for an overnight drive to Baltimore. As he prepared to leave, the worker decided to take a partially full bottle of whiskey with him.
After the rendezvous in St. Catherines, the worker was responsible for leading a group of six or seven trucks to the storm area. The convoy drove overnight and arrived at the staging area at the Baltimore airport at about 6 p.m. on March 4.
The worker parked his truck with other Hydro One vehicles and joined a group of 27 Hydro One employees. After talking with them for a few minutes, he remembered the bottle of whiskey, so he returned to his truck, fetched the bottle from his bag and brought it back to the group. He took a gulp and asked if anyone wanted the rest. None of the other workers took him up on the offer.
A Hydro One customer operations manager was in the group and told the worker that his behaviour was inappropriate and he should put the bottle back in the truck. The worker went back to the truck, took one more swig and put the bottle back in his bag. He then sat in his truck to make a phone call and the operations manager came to the truck window, introduced himself as a manager and said he didn’t appreciate the worker taking another drink when he told him not to.
Later that evening, the worker attended an orientation in the staging area before going to his hotel. The next morning, when he arrived at the staging area, he was told they had to send him home. The worker asked if it was about the incident in the parking lot the previous evening and was told that it was. The worker then made the 12-hour drive back to Beachville in his Hydro One vehicle.
The worker met with management on March 13 for a fact-finding interview, at which he acknowledged his misconduct and said it was a “stupid lapse in judgment” after a long day on the road. Two weeks later, Hydro One terminated his employment for “failure to meet his duties as a leader, breach of trust, violation of the Hydro One code of conduct, and the Hydro One safety rules.”
Was the worker wrongfully dismissed? OR Was there just cause for dismissal?
IF YOU SAID the worker was wrongfully dismissed, you’re right. The arbitrator found that the worker’s misconduct was serious, as he knew the code of conduct and safety rules and also held a leadership role. By committing a serious health and safety violation in front of Hydro One employees, the worker “failed to live up to Hydro One’s reasonable leadership expectations,” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also pointed out that the worker was representing Hydro One “as an ambassador” in his role to help with storm relief efforts in Baltimore. Though there was no evidence of any adverse reaction from the Baltimore electric utility, the worker’s misconduct had the potential to cause Hydro One embarrassment, the arbitrator added.
However, the arbitrator found the worker’s 32 years of service without discipline was a significant factor in the worker’s favour, as was the fact that he acknowledged his misconduct in the meeting with management and expressed remorse. This acknowledgement lent credence to the idea that this was an isolated incident in a long career and it was likely the worker wouldn’t repeat the misconduct.
The arbitrator set the termination aside and ordered it replaced with an unpaid suspension from the date of his discharge to the date of the arbitration decision — a period of three months — with no loss of seniority.
“I.. Accept that the (worker) understands and accepts that his behaviour was completely unacceptable, and he will never conduct himself in a similar manner in the future,” the arbitrator said. “In these circumstances, there is a very good prospect that the (worker) can learn from his mistake and continue to be a good and valuable employee.”
For more information see:
• Hydro One Networks Inc. and Society of United Professionals, Re, 294 L.A.C. (4th) 195 (Ont. Arb.).
