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 Ontario arbitrator has upheld the discharge of a "modern
day prophet" who stated, "the first element to attack is
water – the next is fire" after being told that she
was suspended for five days.
The employer had issued the five-day suspension to the employee
for carelessly packing defective product. The employee asked
to speak with the plant manager, and then made the water-fire
statement. Her statement had particular poignancy because of
a serious flood at the facility approximately one year earlier.
The employer discharged the employee. The union
grieved. At the arbitration hearing, the employee testified
that "there was too much wickedness in the plant" and
that the manager's disciplinary decisions had been wicked and
unreasonable. She stated that she was a religious person and
that she believed that bad things happen to wicked people.
She also said that she had no intention of starting any fires and
did not intend any threat. She refused to apologize.
Arbitrator Norman Jesin referred to Bill 168 which added
workplace violence provisions to the Ontario Occupational Health
and Safety Act. He decided that the employer had just cause
to discharge the employee. Even if the water-fire statement
was not a threat, it was made in a loud and aggressive manner and
was an attempt to intimidate the plant manager into reconsidering
the five-day suspension. The arbitrator stated that,
"The grievor would have me believe that she is a modern day
prophet simply issuing a warning for the benefit" of the plant
manager. "But I have no doubt that the comments were designed
to scare [the manager] into rescinding the suspension."
In light of the employee's disciplinary record (a previous
one-day and three-day suspension), and particularly in light of the
employee's failure to show any remorse, the arbitrator upheld
the termination.
This decision is part of what appears to be a trend towards
arbitrators taking a hard line on threats of violence (see a
previous blog post on this issue
here).
U.S.W. v. Plastipak Industries Inc., 2012 CarswellOnt 7659
(Ontario Arbitrator)
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.
Employment, Labour and Immigration Law in Canada Preview 
