Death Threats Do Not Automatically Justify Dismissal: BC Arbitrator Reinstates Long-Service Employee

In a recent decision¹, an Arbitrator considered whether a long-service employee who threatened to kill her supervisor should be reinstated. While Arbitrator Rogers found the employee's conduct constituted serious misconduct warranting significant discipline, dismissal was determined to be excessive in the circumstances. The employee was reinstated following a substituted four-month unpaid suspension.

The decision serves as a reminder that, despite increased attention to workplace violence and employers' statutory obligations to maintain safe workplaces, arbitrators continue to assess termination cases contextually rather than applying a strict "zero tolerance" approach.

The Facts

The grievor was employed as a cleaner and had approximately 26 years of service with the employer. Her first language was Punjabi and her English proficiency was limited.

Prior to the events leading to her dismissal, she had received only minimal discipline during her lengthy employment, including a verbal warning in July 2025.

In December 2025, the employer issued the grievor a written warning arising from a workplace incident involving a co-worker. During the disciplinary meeting, the grievor became upset, refused to sign the warning, and left work. The employer subsequently decided to impose a one-day suspension for insubordination and related conduct.

When the suspension was presented, the grievor was visibly angry. During and immediately after the meeting, she referred to her supervisor in derogatory terms and made comments in Punjabi indicating that she wanted to kill him. The evidence differed regarding the precise wording used, including whether she referenced a firearm. However, the grievor ultimately admitted during cross-examination that she had said, "I will kill him."

After learning of the threat, the employer concluded that its "zero tolerance" policy required automatic dismissal. The grievor's employment was accordingly terminated for cause.

The Arbitrator's Decision

The union conceded that discipline was warranted. The central question was whether dismissal was proportionate. Applying the William Scott & Co. v. C.F.A.W., Local P-162 framework, Arbitrator Rogers examined whether termination was excessive and, if so, what alternative penalty should be substituted.

Arbitrator Rogers had little difficulty finding that the threat constituted serious misconduct. The decision emphasizes that threats of workplace violence must be treated seriously and that employers are not required to determine whether an employee genuinely intended to carry out a threat before responding. The award also acknowledges the modern statutory and regulatory environment, which places significant obligations on employers to address workplace violence risks.

However, Arbitrator Rogers rejected the notion that a threat automatically justifies discharge. Instead, the circumstances surrounding the conduct remained critical to the analysis.

Several mitigating factors proved decisive.

First, the grievor had 26 years of service and no history of violence or workplace threats. Arbitrator Rogers found that her lengthy and largely discipline-free employment record supported a conclusion that her rehabilitative potential was high.

Second, the threat arose during an emotionally charged disciplinary process. Arbitrator Rogers accepted that the comments were made impulsively while the grievor was upset and fearful for her job, rather than as part of any planned or deliberate effort to intimidate her supervisor.

Third, the grievor acknowledged making the statement, apologized for her conduct and demonstrated remorse. Arbitrator Rogers viewed this as a significant distinction from cases where employees deny misconduct or attempt to mislead investigators.

Fourth, although the threat was serious, it was made in Punjabi and not directed at the supervisor in a manner intended to cause immediate fear. While these factors did not excuse the misconduct, they were found relevant in determining where the conduct fell on the spectrum of workplace threats.

Finally, Arbitrator Rogers was influenced by the employer's response to the incident. After learning of the alleged threat, management did not immediately notify building security, contact police or take other steps consistent with a belief that an ongoing safety risk existed. Arbitrator Rogers found this undermined the employer's position that it viewed the situation as presenting a serious and immediate danger.

Arbitrator Rogers was also critical of the employer's decision-making process. The evidence suggested that management viewed termination as the automatic consequence of the alleged threat and made its decision before obtaining the grievor's account of events. Although this did not eliminate cause for discipline, it contributed to the Arbitrator’s conclusion that the employer moved too quickly to the most severe penalty available.

Balancing the seriousness of the misconduct against these substantial mitigating factors, Arbitrator Rogers concluded that the employment relationship was not irreparably damaged. The dismissal was set aside and replaced with a four-month unpaid suspension. The grievor was reinstated and compensated for losses beyond the substituted suspension period.

Employer Takeaways

This decision reinforces that workplace violence threats remain among the most serious forms of employee misconduct. Nevertheless, arbitrators will continue to evaluate whether dismissal is proportionate in light of all relevant circumstances.

Employers responding to threats in the workplace should consider:

• conducting a thorough and well-documented investigation before determining discipline;
• avoiding assumptions that a "zero tolerance" policy eliminates the need for an individualized assessment;
• carefully documenting evidence supporting any conclusion that a continuing safety risk exists;
• ensuring that disciplinary decisions consider mitigating factors such as service, disciplinary history, remorse and rehabilitative potential; and
• aligning post-incident actions with the employer's stated assessment of risk.

The award serves as a reminder that while arbitrators have become increasingly intolerant of workplace violence and threats, dismissal will not necessarily follow in every case. Particularly where a long-service employee has no history of violence and the conduct arises from a momentary emotional outburst, a significant suspension may be viewed as a more appropriate corrective response.

Footnote

1. Servantage Services Corporation v. Unifor Local 3000 (Paramjit Grewal Termination Grievance)

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.