Worker displayed ‘nonchalant attitude’ toward supervisors: Arbitrator
When she was seen on two separate occasions not wearing the required protective equipment, a Chipman, N.B., worker was terminated.
Crystal McLaughlin had worked for Grand Lake Timber as a stacker operator since 2012. On Dec. 8, 2017, Tim Ward, maintenance superintendent, and Chris Roy, production supervisor, from the video control room witnessed McLaughlin working at her area without safety gloves, safety glasses and earplugs, all of which were mandatory while on the job.
McLaughlin was also seen talking on her cellphone, which was not allowed during safety-sensitive operations.
Roy immediately summoned McLaughlin to a meeting and told her she would be sent home pending a further investigation, but first she should return to her station.
Charles Cyr, mill manager, and Roy went to McLaughlin’s station about 45 minutes after the initial meeting. They again found her not wearing the personal protective equipment and she was told to go home for three days.
During the meeting, McLaughlin admitted it was “stupid” of her to answer the phone, but because other employees used their phones while on the job, it was acceptable for her to do.
However, McLaughlin was fired on Dec. 14 via a letter, which said: “On Dec. 8, 2017, you were adjusting lumber at the stacker without wearing proper personal protective equipment. At the time, you were also using your personal cellphone which is strictly prohibited.”
The letter also cited three other “serious incidents” over the previous 12 months for tardiness, excessive absenteeism and “unsafe behaviour, cursing over the company radio and leaving work unexpectedly without notifying your supervisor.”
The employer said there were six other disciplinary incidents on McLaughlin’s record dating back from 2014, but it only included the three most recent in the termination notice.
The union, Unifor, Local 104, grieved the firing and argued that McLaughlin’s safety violations were minor and not worthy of a dismissal. It also said other employees used phones and managers also texted employees regularly during work hours.
Because the culminating incident was safety-related and not related to lateness and absenteeism, the three other incidents in the letter were not enough to justify the decision and the other six incidents should not be addressed because they were not listed on the termination letter, said Unifor.
Arbitrator Michel Doucet denied the grievance. “(McLaughlin) was given ample opportunity to correct her behaviour at the workplace but she did not take seriously the messages that the employer was sending her. The employer’s decision to dismiss the grievor was not an excessive response in all the circumstances of the case.”
“I believe that the employer has properly followed the principles of progressive discipline and has concluded that the employment relationship cannot be continued. To substitute a lesser penalty would, in my opinion, send the wrong message. If I was to do this, I would be weakening the position of the employer who, in this case, has played by the rules and followed the progressive discipline approach,” said Doucet.
McLaughlin’s long record of discipline worked against her, according to the arbitrator. “The employer did all that was possible to do to help the grievor. It showed lots of patience with her deviant behaviour. It provided coaching, its supervisors met with her to discuss her situation, it adhered to a progressive discipline approach, but to no avail. Unfortunately, the grievor will have to accept that she is the sole person responsible for the hardship that this decision has created.”
“What is even more incomprehensible is that despite having just been told that she would be disciplined for omitting to wear her personal protective equipment, (McLaughlin) was again caught less than an hour later not wearing them! This clearly reveals her nonchalant attitude towards her supervisor and toward workplace rules. It is not conducive to a positive working relationship,” said Doucet.
Reference: Grand Lake Timber and Unifor, Local 104. Michel Doucet — arbitrator. Clarence Bennett, Sheila Lanctôt for the employer. Brenda Comeau for the employee. June 3, 2018. 2018 CarswellNB 284
Crystal McLaughlin had worked for Grand Lake Timber as a stacker operator since 2012. On Dec. 8, 2017, Tim Ward, maintenance superintendent, and Chris Roy, production supervisor, from the video control room witnessed McLaughlin working at her area without safety gloves, safety glasses and earplugs, all of which were mandatory while on the job.
McLaughlin was also seen talking on her cellphone, which was not allowed during safety-sensitive operations.
Roy immediately summoned McLaughlin to a meeting and told her she would be sent home pending a further investigation, but first she should return to her station.
Charles Cyr, mill manager, and Roy went to McLaughlin’s station about 45 minutes after the initial meeting. They again found her not wearing the personal protective equipment and she was told to go home for three days.
During the meeting, McLaughlin admitted it was “stupid” of her to answer the phone, but because other employees used their phones while on the job, it was acceptable for her to do.
However, McLaughlin was fired on Dec. 14 via a letter, which said: “On Dec. 8, 2017, you were adjusting lumber at the stacker without wearing proper personal protective equipment. At the time, you were also using your personal cellphone which is strictly prohibited.”
The letter also cited three other “serious incidents” over the previous 12 months for tardiness, excessive absenteeism and “unsafe behaviour, cursing over the company radio and leaving work unexpectedly without notifying your supervisor.”
The employer said there were six other disciplinary incidents on McLaughlin’s record dating back from 2014, but it only included the three most recent in the termination notice.
The union, Unifor, Local 104, grieved the firing and argued that McLaughlin’s safety violations were minor and not worthy of a dismissal. It also said other employees used phones and managers also texted employees regularly during work hours.
Because the culminating incident was safety-related and not related to lateness and absenteeism, the three other incidents in the letter were not enough to justify the decision and the other six incidents should not be addressed because they were not listed on the termination letter, said Unifor.
Arbitrator Michel Doucet denied the grievance. “(McLaughlin) was given ample opportunity to correct her behaviour at the workplace but she did not take seriously the messages that the employer was sending her. The employer’s decision to dismiss the grievor was not an excessive response in all the circumstances of the case.”
“I believe that the employer has properly followed the principles of progressive discipline and has concluded that the employment relationship cannot be continued. To substitute a lesser penalty would, in my opinion, send the wrong message. If I was to do this, I would be weakening the position of the employer who, in this case, has played by the rules and followed the progressive discipline approach,” said Doucet.
McLaughlin’s long record of discipline worked against her, according to the arbitrator. “The employer did all that was possible to do to help the grievor. It showed lots of patience with her deviant behaviour. It provided coaching, its supervisors met with her to discuss her situation, it adhered to a progressive discipline approach, but to no avail. Unfortunately, the grievor will have to accept that she is the sole person responsible for the hardship that this decision has created.”
“What is even more incomprehensible is that despite having just been told that she would be disciplined for omitting to wear her personal protective equipment, (McLaughlin) was again caught less than an hour later not wearing them! This clearly reveals her nonchalant attitude towards her supervisor and toward workplace rules. It is not conducive to a positive working relationship,” said Doucet.
Reference: Grand Lake Timber and Unifor, Local 104. Michel Doucet — arbitrator. Clarence Bennett, Sheila Lanctôt for the employer. Brenda Comeau for the employee. June 3, 2018. 2018 CarswellNB 284
