Canadian Labour Reporter

MARCH 24, 2014 8 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 been saying to the public, in contrast to what they are saying at the bargaining table, as meaning their forecast of future events should be treated as the same as an explanation of current events," Lucas said in his decision. The case was dismissed — for now, as Lucas added that a complaint of this nature might well be premature. Both the union and health services were urged to return to the bargaining table and carry on with negotiations. Reference: United Nurses of Alberta and Alberta Health Services. Gerald A. Lucas — arbitrator. David Harrigan, Craig Neuman for the union, Mark Kent, Kim LeBlanc and Cory Galway for the employer. March 5, 2014. Bad parking, screaming matches lead to suspension of Canada Post worker A CANADA POST employee was suspended without pay after he delivered a barrage of insults to coworkers and supervisors. Calgary-based Len Popoff was suspended for two days on June 6, 2012, following two days of "inappropriate comments and aggressive behavior." On May 29, 2012, Popoff approached a coworker — identi- fied as Mr. Szeto — and began swearing at him. Popoff was angry, Szeto testified, because he had spoken to a supervisor about Popoff's parking. Popoff regularly took up more than one parking spot, Szeto said, making it almost impossible for him to park his own ve- hicle. On May 28, 2012, Szeto had to re-park Popoff's vehicle in order to properly park his own. Management discussed the matter with Popoff, prompting him to seek Szeto out. Stezo asked Popoff to stop yelling at him and to "get our of my face." When Szeto tried to remove himself from the situation, Popoff pursued him as he walked toward the supervisor's of- fice. Popoff called him a "fucking rat" and questioned why he made a complaint to management about parking. The incident was witnessed by fellow coworker Lee Stew- art. The following day Stewart was in the supervisor's office when Popoff entered the room, saying, "The rat is here… al- ways right up the supervisor's ass." Stewart testified he left the office to continue his mid-day off-load as Popoff continued to yell "rat bastard" at him. Popoff followed Stewart out of the office and stepped into his path, screaming and swearing only inches from his face. When he told Popoff to leave him alone, Stewart testified, the grievor pushed an SLB tub — which he was carrying — into Stewart's stomach, still yelling. When the supervisor stepped out of his office to tell Popoff to stop, he too was met with a barrage of insults. Popoff called the supervisor a "racist," among other things. The supervisor testified Popoff's anger towards him was likely caused by an earlier confrontation between the two. Previously that day the supervisor commented on Popoff's clothing — he was not wearing the company's standard CPC uniform — and the two had become involved in a screaming match, he testified. Popoff's behavior was so out of place the supervisor asked him if he was inebriated, causing Popoff to fly into a rage. Stewart testified he was "stressed every day" at work be- cause of Popoff's behaviour. He said he feared running into Popoff and was constantly anxious about what Popoff might do. Because Popoff was previously suspended for one day as a result of similar behavior, a two-day suspension was awarded following the incidents on the basis of progressive discipline. Intentionally intimidating The Canadian Union of Postal Workers grieved on Popoff's behalf, saying the discipline was imposed without just, rea- sonable and sufficient cause. The union further argued the employer acted in a "provoca- tive and disrespectful manner, and has failed to provide a safe, healthy and harassment-free workplace." The suspension — scheduled for later that month — was never served and Popoff did not lose the two days' pay be- cause of an administrative mix-up. The union argued the en- tire process was flawed. Because the suspension was never served, the discipline was unenforceable and therefore should be dismissed. The employer called Popoff's behavior "aggressive, offensive and unwarranted." It said his misconduct undermined the supervisor's author- ity and was intimidating to other workers. The discipline should be maintained, the employer argued, to exhibit to all employees that behavior which is aggressive and bullying is not appropriate and will not be tolerated. Arbitrator Richard I. Hornung found Popoff's behavior to be sustained, abusive and intentionally intimidating. "His reaction was completely disproportionate by any stan- dard," Hornung said. He ruled there was no evidence to suggest the other employ- ees involved warranted discipline, saying they were simply on the receiving end of Popoff's bad behavior. Hornung also drew an adverse inference from the fact Popoff failed to testify, he said. "There is ample evidence to conclude that the grievor's ac- tions constituted severe misconduct — in any workplace — and that misconduct is deserving of discipline," Hornung said. "Considered in context, and having regard to his previous conduct and existing disciplinary record on file, a two day suspension represents a reasonable, fair and progressive disci- plinary step in response to the grievor's proven misconduct." The grievance was dismissed. Reference: Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Richard I. Hornung — Arbitrator. Azam Bacchus for the employer, Todd Jarema for the union. March 3, 2014 Visit www.labour-reporter.com for more news and rulings.

• Cover