A driver’s termination for alleged racist comments and violent threats — including stating “I hate blacks,” raising his arm and saying “white power,” and threatening to “go postal” — has been upheld by an arbitrator in Alberta.
Arbitrator Mia Norrie concluded that Inland Concrete (now operating as Heidelberg Materials Canada Limited Concrete Edmonton) had just cause to dismiss J.P. despite three grievances filed by the union on his behalf. The ruling centred on multiple incidents in which J.P. was found to have harassed co-workers, used racial slurs, made threatening statements, and breached the employer’s Respect in the Workplace Policy.
What happened
J.P. had worked seasonally for the employer, a concrete manufacturing division with three batch plants, for roughly four years. In June of that year, he attended a “Start-Up Meeting” where he was refreshed on workplace procedures and expectations, including the Respect in the Workplace Policy, which prohibits “any and all forms of harassment” and stresses “there will not be any tolerance” for racism, bullying, or violence.
Within days, a co-worker, U.N., alleged that J.P. had entered a lunchroom and said, “I hate blacks, I’m a racist,” while raising his arm and stating “white power.” Several employees confirmed hearing J.P. make racist statements and gestures directed at U.N., who testified that he felt “unsafe” and “offended.” Soon after, U.N. raised his concerns with management, triggering an internal investigation.
Threat to ‘go postal’
In a suspension meeting that followed, J.P. was not told the details behind his removal from the workplace. He began speculating aloud about what might have triggered the investigation, including a reference to “paki pizza.” According to two witnesses present, he then stated words to the effect of, “I feel like I should go to the trunk of my car and come back and go postal,” prompting his supervisor to react with shock.
When questioned about this remark during the investigation, J.P. admitted he had used that phrase but initially said he would apologize. Later, he claimed he was joking and that he never intended to threaten anyone.
During the same period, other staff members shared accounts of allegedly racist or intimidating behaviour. One co-worker, B.S., stated that J.P. claimed he was “proud” to be a “white supremacist” and made racially charged remarks on other occasions. Another employee, A.B., who is of South Asian heritage, testified that J.P. repeatedly referred to “paki pizza,” even after A.B. pointed out he was Indian, not Pakistani.
A.B. also recalled J.P. making frequent references to “white power” at the worksite. Further, two co-workers, D.S. and B.S., said J.P. bragged about flashing a “white power” salute at A.B. in such a way that A.B. unknowingly repeated it back, not understanding its significance.
Threat to stab co-worker
The investigation also turned up allegations that J.P. had threatened to stab a co-worker, M.A., during a previous strike if M.A. “didn’t vote the way [J.P.] wanted him to vote.” Although M.A. declined to cooperate in the probe, another employee, C.A., testified that J.P. admitted telling M.A. he had a knife and was prepared to use it if M.A. failed to follow J.P.’s instructions on a strike-related ballot.
J.P. denied ever making such a statement, but the arbitrator gave significant weight to C.A.’s testimony and prior corroboration from management, who had looked into the issue at that time.
Victim of ‘witch hunt’
Over the course of a detailed fact-finding process, the employer collected statements from several employees, including direct witnesses. J.P. was interviewed, given chances to provide a written response, and encouraged to name any witnesses who might support him. Despite claiming he was the victim of a “witch hunt,” J.P. did not file a formal complaint himself or supply details to substantiate his claim that others were bullying him for his physical stature.
In the final analysis, the arbitrator found that J.P.’s explanations were “contradictory” and “implausible,” particularly when weighed against the “clear and compelling” evidence from co-workers. Specific remarks that J.P. acknowledged — such as references to “paki pizza” — were deemed “derogatory.” The decision also emphasized the workplace’s “very diverse” culture, concluding that J.P.’s racist language, along with his repeated acts of aggression, threatened a safe and respectful environment.
Length of investigation and push for reinstatement
Addressing arguments from the union that the employer’s investigation process took too long, the arbitrator concluded that, while it can be “extremely stressful” for a suspended employee awaiting a disciplinary outcome, the roughly one-month delay before the final decision did not invalidate the process. The arbitrator noted the complexity of harassment allegations, the employer’s due diligence in interviewing multiple witnesses, and the need for senior management approval, especially given the seriousness of potential termination.
Turning to the broader issue of remedy, the union had pushed for J.P.’s reinstatement, arguing that termination was excessive even if the allegations were proven. The arbitrator disagreed, citing the cumulative misconduct, J.P.’s lack of remorse, and his breach of the Policy just days after completing annual training. In a key section of the decision, the arbitrator noted that threats—whether intended or not—undermine workplace safety and run counter to occupational health and safety standards in Canadian workplaces.
The arbitrator affirmed that each of the substantiated incidents, viewed collectively, was “heinous and unacceptable,” concluding: “Termination is the only appropriate measure.” J.P.’s further claims of widespread “shop talk” and jealousy did not sway the outcome. The arbitrator dismissed all three grievances, including one that alleged an unreasonable delay, and upheld the employer’s decision to terminate J.P.’s employment for cause.
For more information, see General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 v Inland Concrete, 2024 CanLII 127093 (AB GAA).
