An Ontario labour arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a long-serving millwright at Maple Leaf Foods Inc. after finding that he violated a binding last chance agreement (LCA) in three ways: time theft, failure to follow lock-out procedures, and breaches of hygiene protocols.
The decision affirms that under the terms of the LCA, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to substitute a lesser penalty once a breach was proven. “All three breaches of the LCA have been proven on a balance of probabilities,” the arbitrator wrote. “The grievor’s employment was terminated for those reasons, and, as set out above, I have no jurisdiction to change the agreed upon penalty.”
LCA limited arbitrator’s authority
The grievor, J.W., had worked for approximately 19 years as a millwright at the company’s Courtney Park facility in Mississauga. He was returned to work in 2019 under an LCA after being disciplined for time theft. The agreement imposed strict conditions and explicitly limited the arbitrator’s role in the event of a future infraction.
Paragraph 3 of the agreement required J.W. to “follow all the Company’s policies, procedures, specifically, but not limited to the Collective Agreement,” and warned that “any further performance infractions, including theft of company time, will be grounds for immediate termination of employment.”
The agreement further stated that in the event of a violation, “the Employee shall be immediately terminated,” and “the arbitration shall be without jurisdiction to substitute for the penalty of discharge.”
February 2020 incident led to termination
The grievance centred on J.W.’s conduct during a 12-hour overtime shift on Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020. According to the company, the grievor engaged in about eight hours of time theft, failed to lock out equipment during repairs, and breached good manufacturing practices by not washing his hands when entering food production areas.
The company relied on a video summary and an interview with the grievor conducted on March 10, 2020. The summary documented his whereabouts within the facility, identifying prolonged periods spent in the lunchroom and a lack of presence at his assigned work location.
A termination letter issued that same day stated: “Your actions were not acceptable and cannot be condoned by the Company. As a result of your actions, you are being terminated effective immediately.”
Grievor disputed evidence and policy application
J.W. testified that he worked alone that day, repairing a conveyor belt typically maintained by two workers. He denied taking extended breaks, stating there was “no time to spare” and that the summary of the video footage must be inaccurate. He also asserted that cameras did not show the full picture, claiming he used a different exit from the lunchroom that was not covered by surveillance.
When shown camera footage of the work area, however, which failed to show him present for long stretches of time, he had “no explanation for his absence.” The arbitrator noted that “he simply said that the camera was not right” and that “the Company made up the allegation.”
Regarding the lock-out procedures, J.W. acknowledged the requirement to lock out machinery before performing maintenance but claimed the policy was routinely ignored with the employer’s tacit approval. He said the task only involved “spot welds” and locking out the conveyor would take days. However, the arbitrator rejected this defence, finding that the grievor’s claim “beggars belief” and that he had received training, a personal lock, and understood the legal requirements.
As for hygiene, J.W. conceded that he did not wash his hands every time he entered the raw production area, believing it unnecessary for the type of repair work he was performing. Again, the arbitrator found that hygiene was “not an option, it is a requirement,” particularly in a food production environment.
Credibility issues undermined the grievor’s defence
The arbitrator found significant credibility issues in J.W.’s testimony. His insistence that he could not explain discrepancies in the video evidence and reliance on unverified perceptions of camera placement were unconvincing. “It is more likely than not that he was in the lunchroom for the lengthy times set out,” the arbitrator ruled.
The arbitrator emphasized that the case did not require a full just cause analysis due to the LCA, which limited the scope of review to determining whether the grievor had breached its terms. The arbitrator cited prior jurisprudence confirming that such agreements, when properly negotiated, “remove from my jurisdiction the issue of just cause in its usual sense.”
No mitigation available under LCA
Having determined that J.W. committed all three alleged breaches—time theft, failure to follow lock-out procedures, and hygiene violations—the arbitrator concluded the employer was entitled to terminate under the LCA.
“Discharge is the specific penalty for the subject matter of violation of the Agreement as contemplated by Section 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act,” the arbitrator stated. Accordingly, the grievance was dismissed.
For more information, see Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, Local 175, 2025 CanLII 29918 (ON LA).
