You Make the Call
This instalment of You Make the Call features a worker who was suspended twice after he came into conflict with management over potential safety issues.
Alexandru Ichim was an electrical electronic technician for Nestle Confectionery at its facility in Toronto. He performed preventative maintenance on the facility’s machinery and responded to calls dealing with breakdowns or other mechanical issues. He was part of a team of similar technicians who were assigned work by a lead hand.
On Oct. 15, 2015, Ichim was assigned to work on the motor of a product saver machine. The maintenance team leader went to check on Ichim to see how he was doing and found the motor replaced but not reconnected. The motor connection was open and the panel wasn’t locked out — a safety risk and violation of Nestle’s lock-out/tag-out procedure. The maintenance team leader put a lock and tag on the machine and when he found Ichim, he asked him why it wasn’t locked or tagged out.
Ichim said he didn’t think he needed to follow procedure and became belligerent, adding that he needed schematics and help from someone to reconnect the motor. The lead hand told the team leader that the procedure wasn’t complicated and the latter told Ichim both the head hand and another technician were available to help. Ichim then went on a break.
After his break, Ichim returned to the factory floor with an open food container, which wasn’t allowed because it could contaminate the production of Nestle’s products. The team leader told Ichim to put the food away and Ichim complied with the order. Soon after, however, Ichim became angry at his colleague’s statement that reconnecting the motor was simple and could be done without schematics. He responded by remarking that two of his colleagues were “Chinese speaking.”
The team leader tried to calm Ichim down and found the schematics online. Ichim obtained the schematics and connected the motor about one hour later.
Ichim was then suspended for three days and given a letter indicating he had been suspended for failing to lock out the product saver while working on it, engaging in disrespectful conduct, failing to complete the motor replacement job within a reasonable amount of time, and bringing food onto the production floor.
On March 3, 2016 the metal detector on one of the production lines was setting off false alarms. Ichim was asked to try to fix the problem, but Ichim became embroiled in an argument with a mechanic. The team leader was called over and Ichim responded by aggressively asking — in front of several employees — why the team leader was there and who called him, saying the team leader didn’t deserve to be there, and adding that the team leader didn’t know anything and shouldn’t be a team leader. It became apparent the belt needed to be cleaned and there was no safety risk.
The next day, Ichim was asked to replace a light fixture that required a second employee to secure the area beneath the light before starting the job. However, Ichim went ahead and replaced the light fixture by himself, saying he didn’t think the fixture needed to be replaced but it would be fine as long as someone didn’t walk on the ceiling and cause it to collapse — he had expressed concerns over the construction of the ceiling a month earlier. The team leader suspended Ichim for five days for not following the safety plan.
Ichim filed a complaint, saying both of his suspensions were reprisals under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Code. He argued he took safety precautions by not connecting the motor without schematics, he brought food onto the production floor because of an emergency, and established procedure for the light fixture was to cordon off the area, not have a second person clear it out.
You Make the Call
Were the suspensions reprisals against the worker?
OR
Were the suspensions legitimate discipline?
If you said the suspensions were legitimate, you’re right. The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the October suspension was related to Ichim’s “repeated disparaging comments about his colleagues,” violating company policy with the food container and failure to lock out the product saver while working on it. These instances of misconduct warranted discipline and were not related to any safety concerns he had voiced, said the board.
The board also found there was no causal connection between the five-day suspension in March 2016 and any safety complaint, as Nestle once again had legitimate reasons for discipline — acting aggressively towards the team leader, inappropriate racial comments, and failing to follow direction in how to replace the light fixture. Again, this suspension was not related to any safety concerns Ichim raised regarding the ceiling.
The board dismissed Ichim’s complaint, finding the two suspensions were not reprisals for his expression of safety concerns. See Ichim v. Nestle Confectionery, 2017 CarswellOnt 14455 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.).
