The union said the employer did not have sufficient evidence to justify discipline
Gord Madsen, a foreman for the city of Winnipeg’s Public Works Department, was suspended for 10 days without pay after he accused an employee of being a “dog killer.”
The employee in question — Joshua Weisz — was spreading sand on the streets of a residential subdivision in March 2014, when his vehicle struck and killed a dog. Weisz immediately called his supervisor Randy Pal and explained what happened. Pal, along with Madsen, attended the scene.
In reviewing the scene to determine how the collision with the dog may have occurred, Madsen expressed the opinion that Weisz may have deliberately struck the dog. Based on the tracks the vehicle made, Madsen told Pal it looked like Weisz was trying to run the dog off the road. Pal disagreed with this speculation.
After the city’s Animal Services Branch arrived on the scene, the three men returned to the Public Works yard.
Pal spoke with Weisz in the lunchroom and advised him to prepare a written statement about the incident before returning to his office to write his own statement. Madsen then approached Weisz in the lunchroom and asked to speak with him. Madsen asked Weisz to go over what had happened and explain the collision.
Weisz testified that Madsen became angry as he spoke. He said Madsen moved very close to him and demanded a better explanation, calling Weisz a “dog killer” and suggesting Weisz had killed the dog deliberately.
Weisz said Madsen advised him to get his story “straight” because the police would be coming. Upset by this interaction, Weisz went to Pal’s office and reported what had happened.
Pal spoke with Madsen and told him it was inappropriate to accuse an employee of wrongdoing based only on his own personal suspicions. Pal suggested Madsen say he was sorry so Madsen called Weisz that night to apologize.
While Weisz accepted the apology, he was very upset by the interaction and felt he was harassed by Madsen. As a result, a hearing was convened and the decision was made to suspend Madsen for 10 days without pay.
Madsen’s union — the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 500 — filed a grievance. The union argued the discipline was unwarranted under the circumstances and that if discipline was warranted, a 10-day suspension without pay was excessive.
The union further argued the employer did not have evidence, or at least had insufficient evidence, to justify discipline.
The employer, however, argued Madsen had been verbally abusive towards a junior employee. The employer also argued Madsen’s recent disciplinary history was a significant factor in its decision to impose a 10-day suspension.
Madsen had previously been temporarily demoted and was suspended twice due to incidents involving verbal confrontations.
Madsen did not seem to grasp the importance of treating his fellow employees with respect, the employer said.
Because previous discipline and training had proven ineffective, the employer had adopted an approach consistent with the principles of progressive discipline.
Arbitrator Blair Graham agreed with the employer’s decision, saying, “The discipline, which it chose to impose, although severe, was within a reasonable range of outcomes when assessed in the context of the grievor’s prior disciplinary record.”
As a result, the grievance was dismissed.
Reference: The City of Winnipeg and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 500. Blair Graham — arbitrator. John Jacobs for the employer, Kevin Carswell for the union. Nov. 26, 2015.
