An employer can impose disciplinary action on a worker for conduct that takes place away from the jobsite and on the worker’s personal time
In July 2003 Willie Baker, an employee at a mill owned by Canadian Forest Products Ltd. in British Columbia, was given a two-day suspension for participating in a fight with Ben Jex, another employee of Canadian Forest Products. The incident occurred immediately after their day shifts on a vacant lot across from the mill. Baker appealed the suspension. His union argued:
•the company didn’t have a policy against off-duty fighting;
•the company had tacitly allowed Baker’s tense relationship with Jex; and
•Baker’s 10-year discipline-free record should mitigate against the penalty imposed by the company.
“It was a private matter that happened away from work and is therefore none of your business,” said Baker in his letter of grievance. Jex also received a two-day suspension. His grievance was resolved during mediation.
The British Columbia Arbitration Board heard the first conflict between Baker and Jex was in 2002, when Jex was an acting supervisor and Baker took exception to his instructions. In February 2003 Jex reported being harassed and verbally abused by Baker, and told a manager if it didn’t stop he’d take the matter into his own hands.
In early June, Baker told a supervisor Jex had challenged him to a fight at a local bar. Jex said Baker had been harassing him. This took place a week before the June 11 altercation which resulted in the suspensions.
The board ruled that prior to June 11 senior management should have taken steps to speak to Baker and Jex about the personality conflict. But it said the company had already acknowledged its responsibility when it reduced Baker’s suspension from 10 days to two.
The board dismissed Baker’s claim that the off-site altercation was none of the company’s business.
“It was scarcely removed from the workplace either physically or temporally,” it said.
The triggering event and the entire context of Baker’s conduct towards Jex involved their relationship at work. The premeditation and timing of the altercation, that other employees were aware of its occurrence and gathered to watch it and its location adjacent to the mill gave Canadian Forest Products a legitimate concern, the board said. The company’s reputation could be harmed and there were serious implications for employee harmony.
The company did not have a specific policy against off-duty fighting. But in these circumstances, Baker “must reasonably appreciate, as a matter of common sense, that his behaviour would be viewed as work-related misconduct likely to attract a disciplinary response,” said the board.
Baker had a clean disciplinary record but he committed a serious act of misconduct that warranted a substantial penalty. He had not acknowledged his conduct was wrong, and never expressed remorse. A two-day suspension was not an arbitrary or harsh treatment, the board said.
For more information see:
• Canadian Forest Products Ltd. v. U.S.W.A., Local 1-424, 2006 CarswellBC 1544, 146 L.A.C. (4th) 385 (B.C. Arb. Bd.).
•the company didn’t have a policy against off-duty fighting;
•the company had tacitly allowed Baker’s tense relationship with Jex; and
•Baker’s 10-year discipline-free record should mitigate against the penalty imposed by the company.
“It was a private matter that happened away from work and is therefore none of your business,” said Baker in his letter of grievance. Jex also received a two-day suspension. His grievance was resolved during mediation.
The British Columbia Arbitration Board heard the first conflict between Baker and Jex was in 2002, when Jex was an acting supervisor and Baker took exception to his instructions. In February 2003 Jex reported being harassed and verbally abused by Baker, and told a manager if it didn’t stop he’d take the matter into his own hands.
In early June, Baker told a supervisor Jex had challenged him to a fight at a local bar. Jex said Baker had been harassing him. This took place a week before the June 11 altercation which resulted in the suspensions.
The board ruled that prior to June 11 senior management should have taken steps to speak to Baker and Jex about the personality conflict. But it said the company had already acknowledged its responsibility when it reduced Baker’s suspension from 10 days to two.
The board dismissed Baker’s claim that the off-site altercation was none of the company’s business.
“It was scarcely removed from the workplace either physically or temporally,” it said.
The triggering event and the entire context of Baker’s conduct towards Jex involved their relationship at work. The premeditation and timing of the altercation, that other employees were aware of its occurrence and gathered to watch it and its location adjacent to the mill gave Canadian Forest Products a legitimate concern, the board said. The company’s reputation could be harmed and there were serious implications for employee harmony.
The company did not have a specific policy against off-duty fighting. But in these circumstances, Baker “must reasonably appreciate, as a matter of common sense, that his behaviour would be viewed as work-related misconduct likely to attract a disciplinary response,” said the board.
Baker had a clean disciplinary record but he committed a serious act of misconduct that warranted a substantial penalty. He had not acknowledged his conduct was wrong, and never expressed remorse. A two-day suspension was not an arbitrary or harsh treatment, the board said.
For more information see:
• Canadian Forest Products Ltd. v. U.S.W.A., Local 1-424, 2006 CarswellBC 1544, 146 L.A.C. (4th) 385 (B.C. Arb. Bd.).
