Timing error in the discipline process proves fatal for the employer's just cause case
In a decision released April 13, 2026, arbitrator Derek L. Rogers found that Hartmann Canada Inc. dismissed a nearly 38-year employee without just cause, yet declined to order his reinstatement. The case turns on a misstimed discipline process and a conduct record Rogers found made return to the workplace untenable.
Mark Doull, a Dry Press Operator at Hartmann's Brantford, Ontario plant, was terminated on September 11, 2025, following an altercation with Michael Brown, a probationary employee who had joined the company on August 18, 2025. On September 5, Brown repeatedly stopped a press he was not qualified to operate, ignoring direction from Doull and a co-worker.
Doull, visibly angered, raised his voice at Brown, pushed aside a steel cull bin weighing approximately 60 pounds, and grabbed the shovel out of Brown's hands. Brown then walked off to report the incident at the supervisor's office, where Doull followed him and they had heated words in the presence of management. Hartmann concluded Doull had violated its Workplace Violence and Harassment Prevention Policy, which defines violent behavior as "a statement or behaviour that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat of physical harm, or an attempt or exercise of physical force that causes or could cause physical or psychological harm."
Rogers found Brown's comment was "inappropriate, presumptuous and disrespectful, if not insulting," and identified provocation as a mitigating factor.
A discipline record built on a timing failure
Doull's termination letter cited three active disciplinary steps: a one-day suspension from July 2024, a three-day suspension from March 2025, and a five-day PPE suspension for a violation on September 3, 2025. However, Doull was not informed of the five-day suspension until the afternoon of September 5, hours after the altercation with Brown had already ended.
The July 2024 suspension had warned explicitly: "Insubordination, violence and harassment will not be tolerated. . . . Further instance will result in progressive discipline process up to and including termination."
Rogers ruled: "I find the Employer's characterization of Mr. Doull's misconduct to have been exaggerated and that a more balanced assessment would have resulted in the conclusion that he ought to have been subjected to a more lenient disciplinary or corrective response."
Wrongful dismissal, but no reinstatement
Rogers dismissed the grievance challenging the five-day suspension. He declared the termination did not constitute dismissal for just cause, but declined to order reinstatement. Drawing on the Supreme Court of Canada's exceptional circumstances standard, he found the employment relationship no longer viable.
Co-workers were reluctant to work with Doull. His supervisor created shift rotations to manage his presence. Witnesses testified to anger issues, with some saying they feared him. Rogers also noted that Doull gave false testimony at the hearing, most notably his claim that grabbing the shovel was simply an effort to teach Brown how to use it, and found this, together with his refusal to accept any responsibility for his conduct, did not bode well for successful reintegration.
Rogers found Doull's "obstinate refusal to acknowledge the obvious wrongdoing in which he engaged on September 3, 2025 in relation to PPE and on September 5, 2025 in relation to workplace respect and violence issues to be disqualifying and to justify the conclusion that 'he is unlikely to learn from another opportunity and that the [Employer] need not continue to cope with him.'" The parties were directed to negotiate appropriate compensation.
See Hartmann Canada Inc. v United Steelworkers USW Local 1-500, 2026 CanLII 32270 (ON LA)
