Coast guard worker grievance dismissed by board: Ontario employment lawyer on HR Reporter

Interview Summary

A grievance submitted by a former Coast Guard worker has been dismissed by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. The worker was let go from his position after making threatening comments to others while on duty. The termination of employment occurred after several warnings from an officer regarding inappropriate conduct.

Jon Pinkus, a Toronto employment lawyer and Partner at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP joined the HR Reporter’s Jeffrey Smith to discuss the dismissal and its implications for employee rights.

Interview Notes

• Repeated serious misconduct: Pinkus noted that this was a pattern of behaviour for the worker. “What was really critical to the decision is that this wasn’t a singular incident, but a repeated pattern of death threats,” said Pinkus. “[The employer] really had no other option, and that’s why the employer was able to evade what would normally be required, which is progressive discipline.”
• Need for progressive discipline: The nature of the Coast Guard worker’s threats meant a lack of progressive discipline was necessary. “You don’t have to engage in progressive discipline in such a situation, as opposed to someone who may have made an offhand comment in frustration or as a joke, where the result could be very different,” Pinkus explained. “Especially given the repeated nature of the comments, it’s certainly credible that people would feel threatened.”
• Employer obligation and workplace safety: Pinkus noted the importance of workplace safety, and an employer’s obligation to uphold a safe workplace for all staff. “Everything the employer did suggests that they feared for the safety of their employees and that is, in my opinion, the most important thing,” Pinkus said. “They didn’t just sit down and talk to this employee a week later and not do anything to protect employees – they showed they genuinely believed the employee’s concerns for their physical safety and the adjudicator wasn’t inclined to second-guess their decision.”
• Terminations “for cause: Pinkus explained that the context of employee behaviour is relevant, and employers should be cautious about terminating employees “for cause” for isolated incidents. “Everything the employer did suggests that they feared for the safety of their employees and that is, in my opinion, the most important thing,” Pinkus commented. “They didn’t just sit down and talk to this employee a week later and not do anything to protect employees – they showed they genuinely believed the employee’s concerns for their physical safety and the adjudicator wasn’t inclined to second-guess their decision.”

Related Resources

For further insights and discussions related to workplace harassment, explore the following resource:

• Workplace investigations