An Edmonton cement plant was justified in firing a unionized worker after allegations surfaced that he threatened to return to work with a gun and shoot both a co-worker and his supervisor.
The incident in question occurred on May 29, 2022, during a shift change at Heidelberg Materials plant. According to the employer’s account, G.P., who had worked as a Lab Analyst since 2009, was agitated over a workplace disagreement involving the timing of a dust dump — a routine yet contentious procedure at the facility.
In a conversation with a co-worker, G.P. allegedly expressed his frustration by stating that he was going to “go home, get a gun, and return to work to shoot (a control operator)” and then “shoot that fucking supervisor.”
G.P. vehemently denied making these threats, contending instead that his co-worker had been the one to initially bring up the subject of workplace violence during their conversation. G.P. asserted that he merely agreed with the co-worker’s statement about understanding how disgruntled employees could be pushed to violence.
Credibility issue
However, the arbitrator, after considering testimonies from several witnesses and the credibility of the involved parties, concluded that G.P. did indeed make the threats as alleged. The ruling noted that while neither G.P.’s nor the co-worker’s accounts were flawless, the arbitrator found the co-worker’s testimony more credible. This determination was crucial to the outcome, as the case largely hinged on a credibility dispute between the two men.
The arbitrator’s decision detailed several factors that influenced the credibility assessment. The co-worker’s testimony was seen as consistent with the broader context of the case, including his behaviour immediately following the alleged incident. He had reported the conversation to management, citing concerns about the seriousness of G.P.’s comments, particularly in light of a prior workplace shooting incident in the United States, which had heightened his sensitivity to such threats.
G.P.’s account, on the other hand, was found to be less plausible. The arbitrator noted inconsistencies in his statements about his emotional state on the day in question. Despite G.P.’s attempts to downplay his agitation, evidence suggested that he was significantly upset throughout the day, casting doubt on his claim that he was merely “confused” during his interaction with his co-worker.
Prior comments about gun violence
Further undermining G.P.’s credibility were his prior comments about violence in the workplace. The arbitrator referenced past instances where he had made remarks about wanting to physically harm co-workers, including a 2019 incident in which he mentioned understanding how people could “go postal.”
While these previous statements were not as severe as the alleged gun threat, they were considered relevant in assessing the likelihood that G.P. would make such a threat.
Proportionality of termination
The ruling also addressed the proportionality of G.P.’s termination. The arbitrator concluded that the employer’s decision to dismiss him was appropriate, given the severity of the threats and the company’s workplace policies, which strictly prohibit violence or threats of violence.
The arbitrator referenced several legal precedents, noting that such threats are taken seriously in the workplace, regardless of whether the individual intends to act on them. The decision emphasized the employer’s responsibility to maintain a safe work environment, free from harassment or violence.
Long tenure
Despite G.P.’s long service at the company, the arbitrator found that there were no significant mitigating factors that would justify reducing the penalty from termination. His refusal to acknowledge the threats and his lack of remorse were particularly detrimental to his case. The ruling also noted that G.P.’s prior disciplinary record, which included warnings for unprofessional behaviour, further supported the decision to uphold his dismissal.
The union representing G.P. argued that the employer’s investigation into the incident was flawed, citing minor discrepancies and alleging that the termination letter did not adequately outline the reasons for dismissal.
However, the arbitrator dismissed these claims, finding that any deficiencies in the investigation were minor and did not impact the overall fairness of the process.
The arbitrator denied the grievance, affirming that G.P.’s termination was justified under the circumstances.
For more information, see International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local Lodge Number D359 v Heidelberg Materials, 2024 CanLII 81148 (AB GAA).
