Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, 2019 Candu worker can't do safety training Worker had concerns taking refresher training would change his status despite reassurances; training was a requirement for all employees BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A n Ontario worker who was fired after months of refusing to take safety training required by his employer has been reinstated with a two-month suspension replacing his dismissal. Michael Petrunik was hired by Candu Energy in April 2013 to work at its head office in Mississauga, Ont. as an "IntEC Application Support Professional." Can- du is involved in the design, construction, refurbishment and maintenance of nu- clear power facilities across Canada and in other countries. When Petrunik was hired, he completed Candu's basic radiation protection train- ing. Candu considered the training as a foundation of the company's safety culture that ensured everyone was aware of the radiological contamination on the site and knew how to avoid it. Petrunik was part of a group of employ- ees who didn't work in the radiological ar- eas of the workplace. ose who did were called nuclear energy workers (NEWs) and had to take additional training on top of that taken by Petrunik and employees in his group. In late 2016, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission renewed Candu's licence and some changes were made to the radiologi- cal lab area at the head office. e changes required updates to the radiation protec- tion training, so the company decided to have all employees take refresher training. Employees were notified that they were re- quired to complete the training — which was computer-based and took less than one hour — by the end of February 2017. Worker didn't understand reason for safety training A year later, not all employees had com- pleted the training, so Candu sent an- other notice saying everyone should com- plete it by Jan. 31, 2018. Petrunik told his manager that he didn't understand why he had to take the refresher training and he was worried that doing so would make him a NEW who might have to work in the radiological areas of the workplace. His manager assured him the training wouldn't make him a NEW and the com- pany wanted to ensure all employees were familiar with the issues around radiation protection as soon as possible. However, Petrunik pointed out that the Candu website stated that all NEWs were required to take the training annu- ally. His manager countered that the train- ing wasn't what made someone a NEW; it was the liklihood that their work exposed them to radiation. In addition, employees who became NEWs had to sign a form ac- knowledging their status as a nuclear en- ergy worker — however, what the manager didn't know was that Petrunik had signed such a form when he had been hired in 2013, which was why he didn't want to take the training again. Petrunik believed that he had been taught as a Candu employee that if things don't seem right, step back and ask ques- tions before proceeding — which he was applying in this instance. His manager re- sponded that Candu had a right as an em- ployer in the nuclear industry to insist that all of its employees were familiar with basic radiological safety. Candu sent an email on Feb. 14, 2018 to about 65 employees who hadn't yet com- pleted the training. Petrunik replied that he would "rather not" take the training since he didn't want to be grouped as someone who had completed "this sort of training." e director of training responded that the training didn't make him qualified for or have access to work in radiological areas and it was mandatory to ensure all em- ployees were aware Candu had a licensed radiological facility onsite. e company's radiation protection manager met with Petrunik and explained that simply taking the training wouldn't make him a NEW as there were several other steps to reach that status. Petrunik didn't tell her about the NEW form he had signed upon his hire, so the manager didn't understand his refusal. She finally agreed to allow him to skip the training, but the director of training overruled the decision. Petrunik's reluctance to take the train- ing resulted in him being the only Candu employee who hadn't taken the refresher training by mid-March. His manager set up a meeting with Petrunik, the vice- president of plant support engineering, and a human resources representative to try to understand Petrunik's refusal. At the meeting, management explained that Candu required all employees to have a basic understanding of radiation, but Pe- trunik replied that the training didn't ap- ply to him and he wasn't going to do it. e vice-president told Petrunik that he had the choice to take the training or leave, to which Petrunik replied, "Do you want me to leave now?" e vice-president said it was his choice to leave. Petrunik asked if he should come into work the next day and was told to come in at the normal time. Resignation or not? However, after Petrunik left, they dis- cussed the fact that Petrunik had refused to take training that was a condition of em- ployment and decided he had essentially resigned. He was presented with a letter of resignation to sign the next day, but Petrunik refused to sign it, stating he wasn't resigning from his employment but would not do the training. He said he was being "persecuted" for his questioning attitude and he wanted a reason why the training was required other than "the company says so." 4 CASE IN POINT: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL After a year and a half of refusing the training, the worker apologized and agreed to take the training if he was reinstated. INSUBORDINATION IS considered a serious form of employee misconduct, as it can undermine management's authority and potentially disrupt a workplace. As a result, it can often serve as grounds for dismissal. However, it may not be enough to provide just cause if the insubordination isn't directly related to the job or other employees aren't aware of it — even if it takes place over a couple of years. BACKGROUND

• Cover