Lantic justified in firing worker for picket line misconduct, rules B.C. arbitrator

In a recent ruling, an arbitrator upheld Lantic Inc.’s decision to terminate a long-serving employee, H.S., for misconduct during a labour dispute. This case underscores the importance of employer responses to picket line behaviour and the limitations of progressive discipline in instances of serious misconduct.

H.S., who had been employed as a lead hand since 2008, was dismissed on April 18, 2024, following two incidents during a strike by the Public and Private Workers of Canada, Local 8. The first incident occurred on October 18, 2023, when H.S. verbally harassed a truck driver crossing the picket line. The second incident took place on October 25, 2023, when H.S. sexually harassed a security guard. Despite the Union’s grievance that discipline was warranted but dismissal was excessive, the arbitrator found otherwise.

During the investigation, H.S. admitted to using an offensive term in Punjabi and accusing the truck driver of taking food from workers’ tables. Although the employer alleged more aggressive language, the arbitrator deemed H.S.’s words inappropriate and deserving of discipline. In the case of the security guard, video evidence showed H.S. using a megaphone to make repeated comments about the guard’s appearance, urging her to smile. The arbitrator concluded that this constituted sexual harassment, especially since H.S. had planned the exchange, recorded it, and encouraged similar behaviour.

Lantic Inc. conducted an investigation after the strike ended, suspending H.S. on February 5, 2024. During the investigation, H.S. admitted to making the comments but claimed they were intended to “lighten the mood.” On April 18, 2024, Lantic terminated H.S., citing policy breaches and a lack of genuine remorse.

Applying the Wm. Scott & Co. framework, the arbitrator ruled that sexual harassment was severe misconduct, particularly as it was premeditated. Progressive discipline was deemed unnecessary for such misconduct, and H.S. showed little potential for rehabilitation, given his superficial apology. The employer acted consistently in enforcing workplace policies, leading to the dismissal of the grievance. This case reinforces that planned misconduct, especially sexual harassment, can justify termination without progressive discipline.

For full details, see Lantic Inc. v Public and Private Workers of Canada, Local 8, 2025 CanLII 11383 (BC LA). https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcla/doc/2025/2025canlii11383/2025canlii11383.html