Employers are under mounting pressure to do something about workplace violence. But what’s to be done? One of the most popular suggestions is to adopt a zero tolerance policy. Any time a worker commits or threatens an act of violence, he should automatically be fired—even if this is just a first offence.

As a matter of public relations, zero tolerance is a great; but as a matter of practical policy, it doesn’t work.

Blanket Rules Don’t Cut It

The way employment laws work in Canada, the formula “Automatic termination for X violation” is a total non-starter. It doesn’t matter what the “X” is. Employment is considered too important an individual right to allow employees to lose without the due-est of due process.

Employees who get fired have the right to file grievances, lawsuits and lord knows what other kinds of claims to get their job back—or at least collect a boatload of damages for wrongful dismissal. Of course, employees don’t always prevail in these proceedings. But grievances are expensive for employers—even when they end up on the winning end.

If society were serious about zero tolerance of workplace violence, firing an employee for issuing death threats or punching a co-worker in the mouth would be much less of an ordeal.

In fact, courts and arbitrators do give employers a lot more than the usual leeway to discipline employees when the offence is workplace violence. But leeway isn’t the same thing as rubberstamping. Employers still have to slog it out in court rooms and arbitration hearings. And sometimes, they actually have to reinstate employees even though they’ve acted violently.

Case in point: A couple of years ago, in a case called Shoppers Drug Mart Store No. 222 v. Sidhu (Sidhu Grievance), [2010] B.C.A.A.A. No. 67, June 10, 2008, an employee yelled at his manager that he was the victim of a “f***ing witch hunt!” and threatened “I’m going to get you back!”

The threat was serious and it was reasonable for the manager to be concerned for his safety and that of his family. The fact that it was directed against a superior made the offence even more egregious, the arbitrator acknowledged.

But for all that, the guy was allowed to keep his job. It was really a “hollow threat,” the arbitrator reasoned. The employee was really a good guy with a “pleasant personality” and no track record of violence. Thus, even though he had threatened to do unspecified harm to his boss, he deserved a lesser punishment than termination.

Workplace Violence v. Employee Rights

So what we basically have here is a conflict between the imperative of combating workplace violence and the right of employees to keep their employment except when they really really really mess up. Zero tolerance is the point where these 2 conflicting principles come to a head. And, as illustrated by cases like the Sidhu Grievance, sometimes the employment right trumps the violence concern.

Frankly, I think this is a good thing. Allowing employers to fire employees willy nilly for workplace violence would open the doors to all kinds of witch hunts and abuse. But let’s recognize it for what it is.

It’s unfair to expect employers to show zero tolerance with workplace violence while at the same time forcing them to overcome all the employment law obstacles that stand in the way of discipline when employees commit violence in the workplace.

So, at the end of the day, zero tolerance is really a myth, not a real policy.