The United Steelworkers, represented by James Diebert and Lee Klippenstein, successfully argued for the reinstatement of a grievor who was terminated after an incident at a bar mill in a steel manufacturing plant.
The grievor was a pulpit operator. During her shift, a cobble occurred which required the mill to be stopped for clean-up and repairs. A cobble is a bar that failed to travel through the mill in prime condition. The grievor restarted the mill and went to the bathroom. Unfortunately, a billet had cooled down on the stalled line. When it entered the bar mill, the cold billet caused extensive damage to equipment. This forced the employer to shut down the mill and halt production for more than a week.
The employer terminated the grievor, alleging that she was grossly negligent when she failed to detect the cold billet prior to restarting the bar mill and in abandoning her post to use the washroom. The employer submitted that the incident was extremely serious as it caused significant physical damages to the mill, delays in production, and allegedly, significant cost consequences to the employer. It also alleged that she was dishonest in the associated workplace investigation and claimed that her failure to accept responsibility made termination the only appropriate disciplinary action.
The union grieved the termination. It admitted that some discipline was warranted but argued that termination was excessive on the basis of three main issues. First, the union challenged the employer’s evidence on the severity of the consequences of the cold billet entering the mill. Second, the union disagreed with the characterization of the grievor’s actions as negligent. It argued that the grievor’s mistakes were moments of carelessness. Third, the union asserted that the grievor was remorseful following the incident and honest throughout the investigation process. The union also pointed to a similar incident, from several years prior, that resulted in the responsible employee receiving a one-day suspension rather than a termination.
Arbitrator Asbell held that the termination was excessive. He concluded that discipline was warranted as the incident was a safety infraction and a serious workplace offence. However, he noted that the employer had overstated the consequences of the incident. Importantly, the arbitrator characterized the grievor’s conduct as poor judgment rather than intentional misconduct. On the available evidence, he found that the employer could not establish that the grievor breached workplace policies or ignored an alarm. In fact, Asbell highlighted that the employer did not provide any policies or procedures to support its assertion that she should have immediately removed the billet from the reject conveyor. Finally, the arbitrator concluded that the employer had not proven that the grievor had been dishonest. Instead, he found that the grievor made certain honest, but mistaken, statements during the investigation and that she took full responsibility for the incident.
Accordingly, Arbitrator Asbell concluded that there was no reason to believe that progressive discipline would not have addressed the employer’s concerns after the incident. For mitigating factors, the arbitrator noted the grievor’s seven years of service, lack of prior safety-related discipline, immediate acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and genuine remorse. Asbell substituted the grievor’s termination with a five-day suspension.