Canadian Labour Reporter

7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS worker agreed that he was, using another profanity. The supervisor told the worker to leave, but about 15 minutes later the supervisor received a text from the worker about the other employee with another profanity. The other employee filed a com- plaint and told Atlantic that less than one month earlier, the worker approached him while he was op- erating a forklift on the night shift with nobody else around. The worker was driving a forklift as well and blocked his way, yelling, "What the f--- is your problem?" The other employee claimed the worker followed this up by yelling, "You have a problem with me? You better mind your f---in' business." The other employee said he didn't report this incident at the time because he wasn't sure how it would be handled, given that it was a single incident with- out any witnesses. Atlantic investigated the com- plaint by interviewing the em- ployees who had witnessed the December incident, the supervi- sor, and the worker. The worker denied that anything happened and said someone had told him his co-worker had been talking about him. He said he only asked the other employee why he had been saying things about him and didn't offer to "take it outside" or make any threats. The worker also said "nothing happened" with the November incident and he had only asked his co-worker about comments he had made about the worker being driving to work by another employee. Atlantic didn't believe the worker's story, particularly in light of the witness accounts it had for the December incident. The company determined the worker had engaged in two inci- dents of abusive and violent be- haviour. It was concerned about the impact on other employees and the worker's failure to take re- sponsibility for it, so it terminated his employment. The worker claimed the other employee exaggerated the inci- dents — particularly the Novem- ber one, which the other employ- ee didn't report at the time. His union, the Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, grieved the dismissal, arguing there wasn't enough evidence to provide just cause. Arbitrator Jasbir Parmar found the worker didn't have much cred- ibility in his accounts of the inci- dents. The worker dismissed both incidents with similar comments, saying "nothing happened." However, there were several witnesses to the December inci- dent, including the supervisor, who reported something did in- deed happen. The worker was proven to have lied about the December incident, so it was likely he lied about the November incident as well. "The probability that the (worker) was upset and therefore yelling when speaking to (his co-worker) in November is sup- ported by the fact that was his demeanour when speaking to (his co-worker) in December about essentially the same concern (the co-worker) talking about the (worker)," said Parmar. "If this alleged behaviour so enraged the (worker) that he was will- ing to physically fight with (the co-worker) in December, I find it quite likely that the (worker) may have been angry enough to yell while addressing the same topic just weeks earlier." Parmar also found the worker's explanation for his behaviour was less than credible as well. The worker claimed the other employ- ee had been talking about him, but couldn't identify anyone spe- cifically, just saying "everyone." None of the witnesses were aware of the co-worker talking about the worker and the super- visor also didn't know anything about it. Even if the worker had reason to believe he was being talked about, the arbitrator found it was rela- tively "innocuous" and not war- ranting such a strong response. The worker's "physically intimi- dating" behaviour and comments about taking it "outside" could be logically interpreted as threats, which weren't appropriate in the workplace, Parmar said. The arbitrator also noted the worker didn't offer an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdo- ing, even at the investigation after he had an opportunity to calm down. The worker apologized for the first time at the arbitration hearing, which was an attempt to get his job back, said Parmar. Parmar determined that there was no indication the worker ap- preciated the seriousness of his misconduct and returning him to the workplace was "untenable." The termination was upheld. For more information see: • Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd. and International Brother- hood of Teamsters (GCC, Local 100m)(Brar), Re, 2016 Carswel- lOnt 19241 (Ont. Arb.). < Ontario pg. 1 Fired forklift driver's version not credible: Arbitrator Photo: Dmitry Kalinovsky (Shutterstock) "Physically intimidating" behaviour and comments about taking it "outside" could be logically interpreted as threats, which weren't appropriate in the workplace.

• Cover