1

Grievance Assignment - Management

 2

Introduction

Anne Gagon and colleague Linda Graham were having lunch at the Rock Garden Grill

on August 15th. Their two subordinates, Eva Dumbrovski, and Karen deMarcos were also

having lunch at the same restaurant a few tables over. Both tables had two empty beer bottles,

however, no one witnessed them drinking it. Anne approached Eva and Karen politely and

mentioned working overtime again that night. Eva did not reply well to this request and replied

unprofessionally. Anne repeated herself and became more assertive in her tone of voice. This

continued to a further altercation in the parking lot involving fighting. This led to Eva and Karen,

shoving Anne backward. Anne shoved both Eva and Karen back. Both Karen and Eva

attempted to slap Anne across the face, however, missed, causing Anne to fall back onto the

ground because of dodging the hits. Anne terminated both Anne and Karen on the spot and

advised them both to not come back for the remainder of the shift that afternoon. Karen’s

grievance was settled on the 3rd step, giving her a 30-day suspension without pay for

infraction. Anne’s role in the incident left her terminated by the union. Eva’s grievance was

never settled and headed to arbitration.

Facts of the Case

 Only a short walking distance from the plant, The Rock Garden and Grill is a popular

restaurant for Wilson Bros employees to go for lunch. According to the manager,

80% of profit came from Wilson Bros. employees. As such, he reassured any

Wilson Bros employees that if he witnessed anything wrong, he would keep it to

himself.

 Anne Gagnon has 10 years of service with Wilson Bros and is seen as a great

employee despite some issues disciplining employees as a supervisor. Eva

Dumbrovski has 6 years of service with Wilson Bros and is not considered a good
 3

employee, who should have not passed probation and have been terminated a long

time ago. Karen deMarcos was a long-time employee of 20+ years, aged 55 years

old, with a clean record.

 On August 15th, Anne and another supervisor, Linda, were having lunch at the

Rock Garden and Grill, discussing issues of overtime. At the same restaurant, a few

tables over were their subordinates, Eva and co-worker, Karen, who were also

eating lunch together.

 Anne and Linda had 2 empty beer bottles on their table, although no one

witnessed them drink it. Eva and Karen also had 2 empty beer bottles on their

table, although no one witnessed them drink it.

 Anne politely approached Eva and Karen’s table, discussing working overtime

again, as per company policy. Eva did not respond well to this request and

responded unprofessionally. Anne was furious and demanded that they do it.

 Eva and Karen wanted to make a stand, so they left, and the altercation continued

outside in the parking lot where Anna was waiting for Linda while she went to the

bathroom.

 Eva and Karen confronted Anne about not working overtime and both Eva and

Karen pushed Anne. Anne asserted her authority, so she shoved both Eva and Karen

in return. Both Karen and Eva attempted to slap Anne in the face but, fortunately

missed resulting in Anne falling to the ground.

 Linda came outside and saw all the chaos and ordered everyone to stop and they

did. Anne terminated both Eva and Karen on the spot and ordered them to go
 4

home immediately, cutting their workday in half.

 A witness saw the fight in the parking lot and yelled regarding a fight involving

Wilson Bros employees, which Linda overheard.

Arguments for the Case

Collective Agreements:

 According to Clause 7.3 - Discipline-Summary Dismissal, the consumption of

alcohol or drugs on duty can lead to summary dismissal. While it can not be

substantiated if Eva consumed any alcohol on August 15, considering her position

as a Lift Truck Operator, it was a serious lack of judgment to place herself in a

position where this could be suspected.

 According to Clause 1.2 - Management Clause, management has a right to fire

employees subject to the terms and conditions set out in the collective agreement.

At this point Anne followed the Collective Agreement, rightfully dismissing both

Eva and Karen for fighting.

 According to Clause 4.2 - Hours of Work and Overtime, it is expected for employees

to work overtime based on their seniority. Eva is aware of this clause and the

possibility of needing to work overtime, demonstrating her behaviour to be

inappropriate and unprofessional.

Precedent Cases:

 In the case of Hamilton (City) v Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association,

2015 CanLII 7290 (ON LA), there was a similar situation to the case of Eva. The

griever in the other case also used physical aggression, specifically slapping and

shoving towards another co-worker due to an argument. Although other factors

 5

were involved in this case, such as racial slurs, which led him to be terminated (CanLII

7290, 2015).

 In the case of Algoma Tubular Seamless Inc v United Steelworkers, Local 9548,

2011 CanLII 62772 (ON LA), the griever had multiple cases involving aggression

and threats towards other employees. Although there were multiple other factors that

led to his termination, it can be seen as relevant to Eva’s case as there are similarities

involving aggression which contributed to his termination from the employer

(CanLII 62772, 2011).

Eva’s Actions:

 Eva already has numerous letters and suspensions on file including absenteeism,

lateness, poor performance, failure to report and failure to notify spanning from her

hire date to just before the dismissal.

 Eva’s response to Anne was very unprofessional when notified about needing to

work overtime, as Anne approached Eva and Karen professionally and with a ‘light

tone’.

 Eva can be seen as a threat to others in the company as she is the one who

further escalated the situation by stepping outside with the intent to use

physical aggression.

 Eva did not seem remorseful after the incident. No formal apology or regret from

the employee was given.

 Eva is 30 years of age and has 6 years of service. Her age and experience make

her a good candidate for re-employment.

 6

Anne's Actions:

 Although she should have waited to approach Eva and Karen regarding the overtime

requirement back in the office, Anne acted professionally by informing Karen and

Eva about the overtime requirement, abiding by Clause 4.2 - Hours of Work and

Overtime.

 Anne attempted to de-escalate the situation but was met with physical aggression

from Karen and Eva, which resulted in Anne using physical violence in return.

Linda's Actions:

 Linda attempted to intervene and stop the altercation, indicating the seriousness of

the situation.

 Wilson Bros. reputation can be damaged as there were vocal bystanders about an

altercation involving specifically Wilson Bros. employees. Linda overheard this

from the bystander.

Summary of Argument

 Uphold the discharge of Eva Dumbrovski, as her actions constituted a serious

violation of Clause 7.3 - Discipline-Summary Dismissal, specifically fighting and

insubordination which warranted summary dismissal.

 Reinforce the importance of adhering to workplace conduct standards to ensure a

safe and productive work environment. Eva initiated the physical altercation by

shoving Anne, demonstrating a blatant disregard for authority and the workplace

conduct.

 Stress the importance of the Management Rights Clause as it states that

 7

management has a right to fire employees subject to the terms and conditions set

out in the collective agreement, which Anne followed through on.

 There are numerous letters of suspension against Eva that should be taken into

account as the Rock Garden and Grill situation is not an isolated incident. The

company is not in possession of any information that would attribute Eva’s

behavior as a result of a personal or mental health issue.

 Eva is a young professional with 6 years of experience who will have no issues

finding employment elsewhere as Wilson Bros should only be retaining top talent,

excellent performers and those who abide by company policies. Her previous

employment records show she is not remorseful or apologetic for her actions, even

in previous events as they keep reoccurring over the past 6 years. This increases the

chances of more issues occurring in the future.

 This incident could damage the Wilson Bros reputation as a bystander witnessed

the physical altercation in the parking lot, yelling that he ‘enjoyed the show’.

Although no proof, there may have been some bystanders taking pictures or filming

and posting it on various social media platforms.

Recommendations Regarding Anne Gagnon

 According to Clause 7.3 - Discipline-Summary Dismissal, the consumption of alcohol

or drugs on duty can lead to summary dismissal. While there is no evidence of

Anne consuming any alcohol on August 15th, in light of her management role, there was

a lack of regard and concern on her part as she placed herself in a position

where this could be suspected. Regardless of whether Anne was drinking or not, it

sets a bad example on her part as this type of behavior can then be modeled by

other employees thinking drinking on duty is acceptable if it is seen being done by

 8

management.

 Anne was unwise to approach Eva and Karen outside the workplace regarding

working overtime. However, recalling how she felt when they were previously

co-workers, her intent was simply to give both employees advanced information

about the large order that had to be shipped that night.

 As a manager, Anne knew that Clause 4.2 of the Collective Agreement - Hours of

Work and Overtime would be applied to determine which employees would be

required. The response from Eva was not anticipated until it escalated into a fight in

the parking lot. Anne intended to deal with the situation back at the plant.

 Anne also violated Clause 7.3 - Discipline Summary Dismissal, as she did use

physical aggression towards Eva, although, it was not Anne who started the

physical altercation by initiating the first push. It was not Anne’s intention to be

involved with any fighting in the first place.

 We recommend that all supervisors receive additional training regarding

disciplinary action and compliance with the collective agreement. Wilson Brothers

must also clarify its position with respect to what is expected from Toronto

supervisors and management to address any issues at this plant - the problems

implied by the initial training must be addressed. The supervisor’s duty to uphold

the Health & Safety policy must also be reviewed.

 There are concerns that Anne’s future ability to supervise her team would be

undermined if a temporary demotion was made. Therefore, a suspension without pay

should be considered in addition to the re-training. This may be acceptable to the

Union, since it is equitable with Karen’s suspension with respect to this incident. It
 9

should also be noted that neither Anne nor Karen had any disciplinary records prior

to this incident. Neither were the aggressors with respect to the fight.

References

Algoma Tubular Seamless Inc v United Steelworkers, Local 9548, 2011 CanLII 62772
(ON LA), <https://canlii.ca/t/fncs9>, retrieved on 2024-03-03.

Hamilton (City) v Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association, 2015 CanLII 7290
(ON LA), <https://canlii.ca/t/ggdfj>, retrieved on 2024-03-03.