Canadian Safety Reporter

5 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 5 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 News | April 2016 | CSR Worker fired for not wearing PPE gets to put it back on Supervisors and co-workers felt worker's safety violation was minor, so termination was excessive: Court BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A WORKER AT an Ontario nu- clear facility has been reinstated after being fired for breaching his employer's safety rules requiring personal protective equipment. Norbert Joncas was hired in April 2007 by Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) to be an electri- cian at the company's nuclear fa- cility and research laboratory in Chalk River, Ont. Joncas started working in the reactor area and after a couple of months AECL promoted him to a supervisor position. Safety was a core value at AECL and employees were informed that company policy stated that a violation would result in disci- pline. The goal of the discipline was to be corrective, not puni- tive, though the decision on dis- cipline would depend on factors such as level of risk, awareness of risk, and intention. Joncas received generally positive performance reviews each year of his employment, including recognition of his fo- cus on safety. However, he was issued a disciplinary letter in June 2013 related to a failure to follow directives and a failure to have complete oversight of work taking place under his direction. The disciplinary letter made it clear that related incidents in the future would be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal. Four months later, in October 2013, Joncas visited the facil- ity's switchyard area on two oc- casions three weeks apart. The switchyard area was one kilome- ter away from the reactor area where Joncas normally worked. He wasn't permitted to remove personal protective equipment (PPE) from the reactor area and he believed the electrical equip- ment in the switchyard was de- energized because of a mainte- nance shutdown, so he didn't wear PPE to the switchyard on either visit. Inconsistency over PPE requirements According to Joncas, when he first visited the switchyard on Oct. 6, a site electrician told him that no PPE was required and no one else commented on the fact he wasn't wearing any PPE. How- ever, he didn't request a pre-job brief nor did he ask for clarifica- tion on PPE policy at the switch- yard. On his second visit to the switchyard on Oct. 27, a site elec- trician escorted Joncas into the area and a supervisor advised him he wasn't wearing proper PPE. Joncas replied that he couldn't bring his PPE from the reactor area and told the supervi- sor to "ImpAct me," which meant complete a safety violation re- port. The supervisor then turned away, focused on another matter. Joncas entered the building and a site electrician told him he needed to be wearing PPE. The supervisor saw Joncas in the building and told him he needed to leave the switchyard because he wasn't wearing PPE, and escorted him out. He also coached Joncas on wearing proper PPE when the left the switchyard. Following the incident dur- ing Joncas' second visit to the switchyard, the supervisor filed an observation and coaching report and the site electrician to whom Joncas had spoken after entering the building filed a safe- ty violation report identifying the incident as a minor problem. The report also noted that Joncas should be coached on the impor- tance of proper PPE as remedial action. Joncas spoke with his super- visor and the supervisor was content to have Joncas return to work, which he did for three more shifts. On Nov. 1, Joncas had an interview with AECL's human resources department, where he said he was overloaded and wasn't perfect, but no one was perfect. Following the inter- view, AECL suspended Joncas with pay. On Dec. 1, AECL terminated Joncas' employment for breach- ing a safety rule requiring em- ployees to wear PPE. A Canada Labour Code adju- dicator found Joncas was aware there were conflicting views on PPE requirement in the switch- yard when he first visited, but he didn't make an attempt to clarify matters. Regarding the second visit, the adjudicator found Jon- cas was aware of the PPE require- ment and should have behaved differently – in fact Joncas admit- ted this in the hearing. Credit: Shutterstock Safety violation > pg. 9

• Cover