Can an employer terminate an employee for a safety violation, even if the risks and consequences are minor?

215. BCTGWMIU v. Imperial Tobacco, is an example of jurisprudence where termination is supported for a safety violation, even when the risks – and consequences - are minor, but the incident demonstrated that the grievor’s safety judgment had been impaired. In the principles outlined in that case, it is the “potential threat” that must be established; nothing is said of its significance. That case did not involve a lock out violation - which are recognized as a more serious subset of safety violations - but involved a tradesperson who had worked for the employer for five years, who carelessly held an air gun to the stomach of a fellow employee in a joking manner. The gun accidentally discharged, sending an inch-long nail into that employee’s stomach, causing minor injury. The nail was removed with minimal issue, and the employee then encouraged the injured employee not to report the incident or seek medical treatment until the shift was over. The employer had a prior safety incident in his disciplinary record. The arbitrator determined that - while the incident did not result in any “lasting injury” - it was a serious enough incident to cause concerns about the employee’s judgment when it came to safety matters, regardless of the minor consequence that resulted. As a tradesperson, the grievor should have been aware of the danger of joking with an air gun. He found the grievor’s actions had demonstrated that his safety judgment could not be trusted. His decision was influenced by the employee’s efforts to cover up the prank, which “threw further doubt” upon that employee’s safety judgment and compounded his initial error in judgment.

216. While the employee in BCTWGMIU v. Imperial Tobacco acknowledged his role in the incident when confronted by the employer several days later, this was not held to his credit, as the arbitrator felt he would have kept the issue “under wraps” if it had been up to him.