Canadian Labour Reporter

daily clean-up. He walked be- tween the planer outfeed rollers and the outfield belt as a shortcut to his workstation, rather than taking stairs that went over the planer. The area was a designated lockout area because as many as 100 pieces of lumber per min- ute could leave the planer on the outfeed belt when it was running, which could seriously injure any- one standing between the outfeed rollers. The area between the outfeed rollers was behind a door with a sign stating: "Do not enter, autho- rized personnel only" and a yel- low gate with a similar sign — the gate was down when the planer was operating but it was up dur- ing the clean-up. A superintendent spotted Groulx walking between the planer outfeed rollers and asked him why he was there. Groulx replied that the machine wasn't running and he was walking through to get to his workstation. The superintendent reminded him that it was a lockout area because "95 per cent or more of the time the planer was stopped, someone was working on it, and it was locked out." In addition, the daily clean-up shutdown was almost over and the planer would be starting up shortly. Ryam had a lock-out policy for all employees stipulating that employees were responsible for knowing, understanding and fol- lowing the lockout procedures and standard. This included "locking and testing the iden- tified isolating devices to ob- tain zero energy prior to entry." Groulx had completed a training course in May 2018 covering the policy. Ryam investigated based on its Life Safety Protocol Investigation Roadmap (LSP), which specified that any violation of lockout and safety procedures was a "willful or reckless violation" that would result in a "minimum suspension of one week and a minimum one- day safety reset." The LPS investi- gation determined that Groulx's actions deserved a one-week sus- pension, effective Jan. 22. The union grieved the suspen- sion, arguing that it was too long. It claimed that when the gates were up, employees and supervi- sors frequently walked through the planer lockout area to avoid taking the stairs overhead. The arbitrator noted that Groulx was supposed to take the stairs to go over the planer and he had no need to pass through the planer lockout area. The planer was "potentially dan- gerous machinery" and, even though it wasn't running at the time, he "put himself in potential harm" because the planer would have soon been started for the day. The arbitrator found that Groulx ignored "certain core re- quirements of the lockout policy" as well as clear signage about the danger of the area. This was de- serving of discipline. "The notion of any shortcut be- ing taken through a designated lockout area is antithetical to health and safety generally and to the company's lockout policy in particular," said the arbitrator. The arbitrator also found that while the LSP investigation road- map outlined a one-week suspen- sion as appropriate discipline, it didn't "supplant a just cause anal- ysis about culpability" or the con- cept of discipline for correction and rehabilitation. While Groulx knew he shouldn't have walked through the lockout area, Ryam didn't consistently enforce the lockout policy as other employees also took a shortcut through the area when the gates were up, the arbitrator said. Ryam was ordered to substitute a three-day suspension instead of one week. Reference: Ryam Forest Products Group-Chapleau Sawmill and USW, Local 1-2010. Randy Levinson — arbitrator. Lennie Lejasisaks for employer. G. James Fyshe for employee. Aug. 23, 2021. 2021 CarswellOnt 11935 attacked him from behind with a baseball bat he had brought with him. The worker returned to the family home to be with his daugh- ters, but he was arrested later that day. The other man suffered seri- ous injuries from the assault. The next day, the worker called his supervisor from custody and described the assault and his situation, saying that he was con- cerned about his employment. He knew that he would likely get jail time, but he didn't know how much. The union requested a leave of absence for the worker under the collective agreement, which stat- ed that Nutrien could grant a per- sonal leave of absence of up to 28 calendar days, which could be ex- tended upon mutual agreement. It instructed the company to con- sider factors such as operational requirements, whether the re- quest was justifiable, and whether the denial of the leave would cause undue hardship to the employee. Management met several times to discuss the matter. They considered the disruption from temporarily replacing the worker for an uncertain period of time, concern over the worker's violent behaviour, the company's reputa- tion, and reintegrating the worker into the workforce after a serious offence. On April 11, they decided to terminate the worker's employ- ment "due to your inability to re- port for work as scheduled." The union filed a grievance claiming that the denial of the leave of absence request was wrongful termination. The worker pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, and he was sen- tenced to 18 months in jail and two years' probation. He served five months and then moved to a halfway house in Regina, where he could work during the day but had to return for evenings and weekends. He was fully released on March 22, 2020. The arbitrator noted that the worker's conduct occurred off- duty, but it impacted Nutrien because he couldn't go to work while he was incarcerated. It was also notable that the worker was a long-term employee with no evi- dence of a disciplinary record. The arbitrator found that the worker's absence forced Nutrien to reorganize its workforce due to the vacancy, and the uncertainty of how long it would be made it more difficult than other leaves like parental or disability leaves. In addition, while a quick inquiry would have found that the sen- tence would likely be less than 18 months, the worker still wouldn't have been able to return to work for one year. The arbitrator found that Nu- trien reasonably considered the leave request, which was what the collective agreement required. It reasonably and fairly balanced its interest against the worker's and was entitled to refuse the request. As a result, the worker was unable to work his scheduled shifts and Nutrien had just cause for dis- missal, said the arbitrator in dis- missing the grievance. Reference: Nutrien and Unifor, Local 922. Daniel Ish — arbitrator. Dwayne Chomyn, Chris Monfette for employer. Gary Bainbridge, Paige Moreside for employee. Aug. 16, 2021. 2021 CarswellSask 491 Employer considered leave request, was justified in denying it Worker shouldn't have cut across potentially dangerous area < Incarceration pg. 1 < Shortcut pg. 1 7 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS Canadian HR Reporter, a Key Media Canada (HR) Ltd. business 2021

• Cover