Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

2 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 CSR | October 2017 | News Young was a team leader and was required to sign off on pa- perwork for defective, or 'non- conforming', tires — called CNC forms. Quality issues from man- ual tire inspections were also logged into a secondary verifi- cation system. The paperwork from Young's curing department was used to provide evidence for regulatory agencies and external auditors that quality standards were being met. Michelin also codified a set of "cardinal safety rules" that were essential to the company's health and safety practices. The rules related to proper lockout/ tag out procedures, altering safety devices, confined spaces, mobile equipment operation, fall restraint, and hot work per- mits. Michelin made it clear to employees that violations of any of the cardinal safety rules "may result in immediate disciplinary action, up to and including ter- mination." Michelin had a progressive disciplinary process that fea- tured two written warnings, a final written warning, and sus- pension. The disciplinary policy also stated that the entire four steps may not be followed if an employee demonstrates "a gen- eral lack of commitment." If 12 months passed from the last instance of discipline and there was improvement, copies of the disciplinary letters would be re- turned. Young was given verbal coun- selling on the importance of filling out CNC forms on Oct. 3, 2013. Verbal counselling was the first step of Michelin's disci- pline process. Young confirmed that he was trained in the proper completion of the forms. On three other occasions in 2013, Young had to be coached — once on the importance of locking out a press during a seal change and twice on the impor- tance of filling out CNC forms. Suspension for cardinal safety rule violation A few months later, on Feb. 25, 2014, another team leader in the curing department notices that there were no locks in the area of repair of a pneumatic cylinder and mechanical assembly. Young was repairing — a violation of the lockout/tag out rule. The team leader knew Young had removed a part for repair and there should have been an isola- tion lock in place. When Young returned, the team leader asked him if there was any lockout/tag out in place for the part removal and Young replied that there was not but there should be. Young and the team leader met with a human resources rep- resentative and Young agreed he had violated the lockout/tag out rule, explaining that he had been in a hurry to get the machine working again. Michelin sus- pended Young for two shifts (24 hours) for the breach of a cardi- nal safety rule. The discipline letter stated that it was "a serious safety infraction and totally un- acceptable" and if he didn't com- plete his responsibilities when he returned after his suspension, his employment would be termi- nated. Following the suspension, the business unit leader for the cur- ing department told Young that he was on a progressive disci- pline path and another serious incident could lead to his termi- nation. On March 16 and April 9, 2014, Young once again failed to complete CNC forms for de- fective tires. The business unit leader asked Young why this happened, and Young said he felt under pressure as a team lead. At Young's request, he was removed from his team leader position. At Young's annual perfor- mance review in March 2014, he was told he didn't perform con- sistently. A performance review plan was developed in which he needed to show "substantial im- provement" in several areas and there would be "zero tolerance" for CNC paperwork and lock- out/tag out failures. This was followed by a 24-hour, two-shift suspension for the March 16 and April 9 CNC paperwork failures. The suspension was accompa- nied by a "special final letter" say- ing it was Young's "last chance." Young signed the letter indicat- ing he agreed with its terms. On Sept. 4, Young again failed to fill out CNC paperwork and also didn't complete a report that was used to inform the curing shop of any scrap tires. Young said he forgot, but management felt at this point it was difficult to trust he would do his job prop- erly if he couldn't fill out CNC forms consistently. Based on Young's record and the fact he was at the end point of the disci- plinary process, Michelin termi- nated his employment effective Sept. 12, 2014. Young filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Director of La- bour Standards because he felt termination was a dispropor- tionate response. He argued his suspension was for violat- ing lockout procedure and his written warnings were for CNC paperwork. When he was given a last chance, he thought it re- ferred to safety violations and didn't believe "CNC would get me fired." He said his 26 years of service were a mitigating factor and he was better able to handle stress, so he could reintegrate into the workplace and would fill out all paperwork properly. The director of labour stan- dards ordered Michelin to re- instate Young and make him whole, but Michelin appealed to the province's labour board. The labour board found that "there was no doubt that (Young) was warned about his performance" and he violated a cardinal safety rule. It also found Young received warnings and coaching every time he slipped up and he should have been aware that continuing to fail to meet expectations would put his job in jeopardy. The board also found that Young's performance appraisal in March 2014 clearly indicated there would be zero tolerance for failure to complete CNC paperwork or follow lockout procedures. Add to that further coaching and the "special final letter," Young should have been under no misunderstanding where he stood in the progres- sive disciplinary process, par- ticularly since that process had been in place for some time and had been imposed on Young in the past, said the board. The board concluded that Young was treated fairly in Mi- chelin's progressive disciplinary process and was given plenty of opportunity to improve. The fact that he failed to do so and repeated his infractions justified termination as a response for Michelin. The board overturned the order to reinstate Young and upheld his termination. For more information see: • Young and Michelin North America (Canada) Inc., Re, 2017 CarswellNS 967 (N.S. Lab. Bd.). Failure < pg. 1 Worker consisently failed to complete required paperwork Credit: Shutterstock/Dobrovizcki e worker signed a 'last chance' letter indicating he agreed with its terms.

• Cover