An arbitrator has ordered Stelco Inc. to provide the United Steelworkers union with documents created after the termination of two employees, in a case that scrutinizes the steelmaker’s safety protocols and termination procedures.
The ruling is part of an ongoing arbitration concerning the dismissal of B.A., a Crane Operator, and D.R., a First Furnace Operator, following a serious safety incident in January.
The dispute centers on a Jan. 16, 2024, incident at Stelco’s Lake Erie Works facility where the two workers were coordinating the transport of a large bin of scrap metal using a crane. This process, known as “charging scrap,” requires precise co-ordination to avoid endangering workers on the factory floor. On this occasion, the crane, operated by B.A. under D.R.’s direction, passed over workers from the contractor State Group, who were repairing another vessel in the same area. Although no injuries occurred, both workers were terminated on Jan. 26, 2024, for their roles in the incident.
The union, representing the two dismissed employees, argues that procedural flaws and incomplete safety protocols contributed to the incident. The Union claims that D.R. was unable to confirm the work area was clear due to these flaws, a situation exacerbated by a safety representative from State Group who, according to the Union, failed to maintain radio contact with B.A. during the operation.
In the arbitration, the Union sought the production of documents related to Stelco’s safety procedures that were created after the incident. These documents, the Union contends, could reveal gaps or inadequacies in the protocols that might have contributed to the incident and could support their argument for mitigating the penalties imposed on the two workers.
Stelco opposed the request, arguing that the post-termination documents are irrelevant to the case, which should focus on the information available at the time the termination decision was made. The company cited concerns that producing these documents could discourage future safety reviews and policy improvements, potentially stifling employer initiatives to enhance workplace safety.
However, Arbitrator Patrick Kelly ruled in favour of the Union’s request, finding that the documents in question are “arguably relevant” to the reasonableness of the company’s decision to terminate the two men. The arbitrator stated that these documents could expose potential weaknesses or gaps in the safety procedures that were in place at the time of the incident, which could, in turn, influence the final determination of the case.
“There is a material factual dispute in this matter concerning the policies and procedures that applied to the work performed by the Grievors on the date of the incident,” Arbitrator Kelly noted in the interim award. He emphasized that the documents could shed light on whether Stelco’s safety procedures were clear and unambiguous or whether they were flawed and incomplete, as the Union alleges.
In his ruling, Kelly referenced previous case law, including Hamilton (City) and CUPE, Local 5167, where post-termination evidence was deemed admissible to challenge the reasonableness of an employer’s decision. He also cited Toronto Transit Commission and A.T.U., Loc. 113, which established that post-termination documents could be relevant if they demonstrate that the termination decision was based on flawed assumptions.
The arbitrator’s decision mandates Stelco to produce the requested documents within 15 business days.
For more information, see Stelco Inc. v United Steelworkers, Local 8782, 2024 CanLII 80300 (ON LA).
