Canadian Labour Reporter - sample

trucks at the loading dock with forklifts, as well as weighing and documenting the loads. Most of the time, multiple fork- lifts were in operation doing this task in close quarters, so the em- ployees involved had to be aware of what was going on and co-oper- ate with each other due to the po- tential hazards. On June 19, 2014, another em- ployee who was operating a fork- lift near the worker had a verbal al- tercation with her when his forklift came too close to hers. According to this employee, the worker said in a loud voice, "What's wrong with you, you're a f---ing a-----e." She pulled ahead of him in her forklift and then slowed down, blocking his way. When they were both unloading the same vehicle, she also told him to "get off my truck." He claimed the worker had been treating him in an "unpleas- ant and discriminatory" way for days as she didn't seem to act this way towards other forklift driv- ers and he hadn't experienced this kind of treatment from anyone else at the mail processing plant. The supervisor of distribution heard the altercation and heard the worker say, "Get him the f--- away from me." Other employees nearby also heard the worker call the other employee a "f---ing a--- --e" but didn't hear the other em- ployee say anything. Afterwards, the worker came over to two of her co-workers and said, "I'm sorry if that made you uncomfortable but he's an a-----e and has been doing that all week." The worker's direct supervisor consulted with other supervisors and determined that due to the severe nature of the altercation, the fact tension between the two had been escalating, and the other employee claimed she had been singling him out and complaining that he was telling her to do her job, they would give the worker an emergency paid suspension for the remainder of her shift — which was on a Thursday — and her next shift. When the supervisors met with the worker to issue the suspen- sion — slated to last for three days — the worker denied saying the words that were reported or mak- ing the statement to her co-work- ers afterwards. She kept saying that the other employee shouldn't have been helping her and it had been happening for several days. The worker had complained to management and CUPW about the other employee infringing on her work and the other employee had contacted Canada Post's hu- man rights representatives. She then accused them of suspend- ing her because she was a woman and refused to sign the suspension form. The worker returned to work the following Monday and she was interviewed on the Tuesday. The worker's supervisor told her the production process was managed by the supervisor and she was to follow the supervisor's instructions. If she had a problem, she was to use the established grievance pro- cess, not resort to inappropriate conduct in the workplace, he said. Because the worker showed no acceptance of responsibility for her actions, she denied using un- acceptable language towards the other employee, and she tried to lay the blame on others — as well as the fact she had two previous disciplinary letters on her record — Canada Post suspended her for three days without pay, from June 30 to July 3. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) grieved the suspension, arguing the worker's statements — which she finally ad- mitted to saying — weren't threat- ening and were "the kind of thing which gets said in the workplace without comment or disciplinary response." The union also argued that the worker was disciplined twice with the emergency suspension and then the final three-day suspen- sion. Finally, CUPW also said the three-day suspension was exces- sive because it spanned the July 1 holiday and cost her statutory holiday pay and was actually for four days. Arbitrator Bruce Archibald noted that the insulting phrase the worker used towards the other employee implied an accusation of inappropriate, dysfunctional or offensive behaviour and was not "in accordance with (the employ- er's efforts to foster a respectful workplace." "It is indeed not the kind of lan- guage that can be tolerated in a modern workplace such as this. Nor is it the kind of action that can be justified by the (worker) by vir- tue of her frustration with, anger at or fear of (the other employee)," Archibald said. "Thus, the answer to the ques- tion of whether the (worker's) be- haviour 'matters' is clearly 'yes' — this is culpable misconduct which is properly subject to corrective discipline under (the collective agreement)." Archibald disagreed with CUPW that the worker was dis- ciplined twice, as the emergency suspension was administrative in nature and the worker was paid. Only the second suspension was disciplinary. As for the length of the suspen- sion, Archibald agreed that it was too harsh. Even though her use of offensive language was "serious and unjusti- fiable," Archibald found manage- ment was aware of the escalating tension and did nothing. He determined two days was more appropriate. "The situation cried out for a management intervention which was more than picking sides, tell- ing people to stay away from one another (in close quarters where that was a counsel of impossibil- ity), or telling adult people with apparently serious concerns about one another to 'not act like children' (even if they were)," said Achibald in ordering Canada Post to compensate the worker for two days' wages. For more information see: • Canada Post Corp. and CUPW (Snow), Re, 2016 CarswellNat 3216 (Can. Arb.). 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS < Worker's pg. 1 Insults flew after rising tensions at mail-sorting plant Photo: Photo Africa (Shutterstock)

• Cover