A power line technician fired by ATCO Electric Ltd. for a pattern of abusive conduct toward apprentices has lost his bid for reinstatement after a divided Alberta arbitration panel found the company had just cause to terminate him.
The panel, in a majority decision, dismissed a grievance filed by the Canadian Energy Workers Association on behalf of the worker, who had been employed by ATCO since August 2021 and worked out of the company’s Peace River operations. One panel member dissented.
Three incidents over 14 months
The dispute centred on three incidents between January 2024 and February 2025 involving the worker and three apprentices he was responsible for mentoring.
In the first, the worker flicked an apprentice on the lips twice during a work exchange after the apprentice made a comment he did not appreciate. In the second, on Jan. 16, 2025, the worker directed a profanity-laced tirade at another apprentice who had failed to stop the crew’s vehicle at an intersection, telling him to “shut the f**k up” when the apprentice tried to explain himself.
The third incident occurred Feb. 5, 2025, in an open work area known as the bullpen, after an apprentice mislabelled a vehicle unit number on a spreadsheet. A co-worker who overheard the exchange reported that the worker asked the apprentice, “Are you f**king retarded?” and “Were you dropped on your head recently?”
A second apprentice provided a memorandum to human resources stating she had been “pushed to the point of no longer wanting to work at ATCO if it means working with Gary.” She later told the company the incident was the final reason she considered quitting.
Investigation and termination
The complaints prompted ATCO to place the worker on administrative leave and conduct investigative interviews with six employees, including the worker. The company concluded there had been a pattern of intimidating behaviour that violated its harassment and violence prevention policy, and that the worker had shown a lack of accountability and attempted to shift blame during the investigation.
ATCO terminated the worker by letter dated April 10, 2025, stating the incidents had resulted in the company’s “loss of trust and confidence” in his ability to work respectfully with others.
The worker had completed ATCO’s online harassment policy training five times since 2021, most recently six days before the bullpen incident. At his investigation interview, he said he assumed the company had such a policy but had never seen it.
Panel’s findings
Some co-workers described the worker positively, saying he was knowledgeable, safety-conscious and helpful to apprentices. The panel noted his employment record was otherwise clean.
However, the majority found the worker’s responses during the investigation and at the hearing were inconsistent and, at times, lacking in credibility. It noted he told investigators he did not recall making the comments about the apprentice’s head and mental capacity, but later said at the hearing he may have said them. He also described the apprentices as “ungrateful” and said he believed “anyone in my position would be doing the same thing.”
The union argued the worker’s clean record, his stated willingness to apologize and attend counselling, and inconsistent discipline against one apprentice for the intersection incident supported reinstatement. The panel rejected the argument that the discipline was discriminatory, finding the two matters were separate and not comparable in character.
Reinstatement rejected
The majority concluded reinstating the worker risked significant workplace disruption, citing the apprentice’s statement that she did not want to continue working at ATCO if it meant working alongside him, and his continued indifference to the existence of the harassment policy despite having reviewed it repeatedly.
The panel found the seriousness of the conduct, its repeated nature over more than a year, and the absence of any apology or commitment not to repeat the behaviour at the time of the incidents weighed against a lesser penalty. The grievance was dismissed.
For more information, see Canadian Energy Workers Association v Atco Electric Ltd., 2026 CanLII 73513 (AB GAA)
Counsel for the Union
Dan Scott, K.C., and Adrienne Faulkner
Counsel for the Employer
Damon Bailey, K.C.
Decision Maker
William J. Johnson, K.C. (chair), with panel members Holly McEwan (union nominee, dissenting) and Craig Neuman, K.C. (employer nominee)
