We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
An Alberta arbitrator ruled that a company had just cause to
immediately terminate the employment of a lead mechanic for a
Lockout/Tag Out Policy violation because of the exceptional lengths
the company had gone to in order to maintain a high level of safety
in the plant.
On the day of the incident, a lead mechanic, with seven years of
service with the company, was called to the shrink wrapper area and
reported that it was not working and that the trunnion wheel had
snapped. As the same problem had occurred previously, the mechanic
knew that the gear box had to be replaced. He locked out the
machine and replaced the gear box. The mechanic later received a
call that the shrink wrapper was still not functioning properly.
Rather than following the company's Lockout/Tag Out Policy, the
mechanic returned with a rag to clean the oil off the trunnion
wheel. He held the rag on the trunnion wheel intending to clean off
the oil while the wheel rotated. A jagged edge on the inside part
of the rotating wheel caught the rag and flipped the mechanic's
right hand. His thumb nail was removed on impact. The mechanic
immediately reported the incident, a workplace investigation
followed and the worker was terminated for cause.
The mechanic claimed that he was wrongfully dismissed. The
arbitrator concluded that the mechanic was well-versed on the plant
safety policy, as well as the expectations of the company and the
consequences for failing to follow the Policy at the time of the
incident. Moreover, given his experience and position as a mechanic
leader, and bearing in mind the emphasis of the company on the
importance of observing safety procedures, the arbitrator found it
difficult to understand why the mechanic did not follow the Policy
on the day of the incident. A deliberate and conscious decision to
ignore the Policy was made and can only be viewed as an act of
defiance which undermined the confidence and trust of the company.
The arbitrator ruled that the just cause termination was
justified.
A key point from this case is that if a company policy is relied
on for an employee's termination, the company must ensure that
employees are thoroughly aware of company policies and the
consequences that may result from a violation.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
