PDF version (Originally published in Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce Newsletter, Feb-March 2012).
On August 18, 2011, the first Bill 168 Ontario arbitration decision was made in the matter of Kingston (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 109 (Hudson Grievance), providing an insight into how Bill 168 amendments function in the workplace and how they may be used to terminate an employee.
Background
Throughout Donna Hudson’s employment with the City of Kingston, Ms. Hudson received multiple warnings for various reasons, including shouting at her supervisor, as well as angrily confronting and swearing at co-workers. In September of 2009, the employer conducted Bill 168 training for its employees in preparation for the Bill 168 amendments. Ms. Hudson attended training session and was informed of the concepts of harassment, verbal and physical violence in the workplace.
Despite the foregoing, Ms. Hudson made a verbal threat to her Union representative, John Hale, at the workplace, whereby Mr. Hale requested that Ms. Hudson not talk about a friend of his who was dead, to which Ms. Hudson responded, ‘Yes, and you will be too.’
In response, the employer conducted a workplace investigation into the matter, and determined that given Ms. Hudson’s record of issues at the workplace, the appropriate disciplinary response was termination. Ms. Hudson grieved her termination before an arbitration board.
Arbitration Award
After concluding that Ms. Hudson did make the alleged threat towards Mr. Hale and discussing the ways in which the Bill 168 amendments have impacted the process used to determine the appropriate penalty for acts of workplace violence, the Arbitrator determined that the employer was justified in terminating Ms. Hudson’s employment stating that it was ‘an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary response’.
Points of Interest
Though the above decision is context specific, and many questions pertaining to the application of the Bill 168 amendments still remain unanswered, the above decision has defined what an appropriate response may be from an employer in regards to an act of workplace violence, and has also shed light on what is expected of both employees and employers when an act of workplace violence has occurred.
