Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

3 Angry worker storms his way out of a job Worker's tirade against managers raised workplace violence concerns BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO healthcare em- ployer had just cause to dismiss a worker who demonstrated insubordinate and potentially threatening behaviour, an arbi- trator has ruled. The worker was a part-time dietary aide for Specialty Care Trillium Centre, a facility pro- viding long-term care and re- tirement residences in Kingston, Ont. Hired in March 2006, the worker was a frequent presence in the centre's progressive dis- cipline system. He accumulated a disciplinary record that in- cluded a verbal warning, a writ- ten warning, and four separate suspensions of increasing length — one day, two days, three days, and five days. In early 2014, the worker ap- plied for a posted position in maintenance at the facility. He took a test for the position on March 11. During the test, the worker became angry and upset, calling the test stupid and not right. Despite being told to calm down by the HR manager — who was administering the test — the worker continued to become agi- tated and raise concerns about it. Following the test, the worker went to the office of the build- ing operations manager — who had only been with the centre for one year at the time. The worker approached the man- ager aggressively, said the test was "bullshit" and the manager didn't know what he was doing. According to the manager, the worker was swearing and it was difficult to make out everything he was saying. The worker then backed off and apologized for his tirade, but he soon became angry again and continued his aggressive behav- iour. The manager asked him to leave and, concerned about such behaviour in a workplace with mostly female employees, he reported the incident to the HR manager and executive director. After learning of this incident, the HR manager added that the worker had followed him to his car after finishing the test. The Trillium Centre also learned that another dietary aide had seen the worker in his car in the parking lot a few days earlier with a gun. The employee saw the worker take the gun out of a box and "pump it," scaring her. The worker called out to her and told her it was only a fake gun. The co-worker later told other employees about it and said that she had been scared at first but believed him when he said the gun was fake. On March 14, management met with the worker and a rep- resentative from his union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The worker de- nied any inappropriate conduct with the building services man- ager. He agreed he approached the manager to complain about the test because he felt the ques- tions weren't related to the job requirements and some of his answers were marked wrong when they were correct. He claimed he spoke to the build- ing services manager in a "calm and rational way" but it was the manager who became aggres- sive, saying he had been in the military and asking him "who are you to question me?" As for the gun, the worker said it was an "airsoft" gun he had purchased during his lunch break and he decided to open it and look at it while waiting for his wife — who was also an employee at the centre — in the parking lot. He said he didn't think anything of it at the time but acknowledged that it wasn't a good idea and he wouldn't bring such a gun to work again. He ini- tially said no-one had seen him with the gun but then changed his story when the co-worker's report came to light. The centre determined the two incidents showed "a gross lack of judgment" and a violation of its workplace harassment and violence policy. Given his disci- plinary record and his "limited acknowledgement of the severity of your actions," the centre termi- nated the worker's employment. The SEIU grieved the termi- nation, arguing that the centre didn't have just cause as required under the collective agreement. It claimed the worker's conduct couldn't reasonably have been seen as a threat of physical vio- lence to the building services manager, the HR manager, or any other employee. It also ar- gued the gun incident was a "red herring" in the case being built for his dismissal, as the worker was simply looking at a fake gun in his car and happened to be spotted by someone. Arbitrator Norm Jesin ac- cepted that the worker was an- gry about the test for the posted position and let his anger get out of control, confronting both the HR manager who was adminis- tering the test and afterwards the building services manager. Jesin found there was no implication of physical violence in the office confrontation and it wasn't likely the building services manager felt he was about to be physically attacked. However, when he confronted the HR manager, the worker said the manager would regret his actions, which could be considered a "veiled threat," said Jesin. Arbitrator Jesin also found that the worker had significant previous discipline and demon- strated "a continuing pattern" of refusing to accept management authority. The worker's "unwill- ingness to accept responsibility for his actions or to accept the authority of the employer to exercise its management rights in the operation of its business," his disciplinary record, and his veiled threat to the HR manager — which Jesin characterized as serious in light of Ontario's Bill 168 that placed specific duties on employers to protect against workplace violence — provided the Trillium Centre with just cause for dismissal under the collective agreement. See Spe- cialty Care Trillium Centre and SEIU, Local 1 (Tucker), Re, 2016 CarswellOnt 6616 (Ont. Arb.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 News | August 2016 | CSR Credit: Shutterstock/John Gomez

• Cover