Arbitration board says corrective discipline would be useless for employee who refused to accept he did anything wrong in two incidents on the road
The Ontario Arbitration Board has upheld the firing of a delivery truck driver for unsafe driving because he refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
Daniel Mainville was hired as a transport delivery driver by Sysco Food Services in Peterborough, Ont., in 1997. On March 13, 2007, Sysco received a letter from another truck driver about an incident on the highway that had happened six days earlier. The driver claimed Mainville, while driving a double tractor trailor, tailgated him at a speed faster than the speed limit and then tried to pass him on a solid centre line and on a corner. There was another car ahead and the driver said he was forced to drive his own heavy truck onto the right shoulder to allow Mainville’s truck to move over. Mainville continued to follow closely behind him and flashed his highbeams at the driver. When Mainville tried to pass a second time, the driver called 911 with the truck number and company name.
Sysco investigated the claim and discovered the police had not acted on the complaint. Mainville was interviewed and he claimed the other driver had been much more aggressive and he had stayed a safe distance behind the truck. He said he waited until there was a section of road allowing passing before doing so at a safe speed. However, Mainville admitted he had flashed his highbeams, hugged the double centre line and tried to pass after the other truck braked.
Driver given warning about road rage
Sysco determined the only reason for Mainville’s actions was to bother the other driver and to get him to do what he wanted. This, Sysco felt, was road rage, which was “unacceptable and dangerous” to have while behind the wheel of a large transport truck. The company issued a written warning to Mainville that he should operate his truck “in a safe and professional manner obeying all rules of the road at all times” and use good judgment. The warning concluded with a statement that another incident would lead to more discipline up to and including termination. Mainville signed the statement acknowledging he understood the warning and consequences.
Mainville was told a refresher training course would be arranged for him to attend. However, he claimed didn’t receive any additional training. Sysco said it gave him some coaching that if he ever felt he was going to lose his temper, he should get off the road and take a break. It felt his problems were with anger, not his driving skills, so no further training was needed.
Second incident results in charge and fine
On May 13, 2007, Mainville was driving a tractor-trailor behind an unmarked police car. The police car pulled him over and the officer said he was tailgating only one car-length behind him at 85 km per hour. He charged Mainville with following too closely. Mainville argued the officer kept slowing down then speeding up, causing him to get too close and entrapping him. He also claimed the officer acted inapproriately and appeared to be inebriated. Mainville was found guilty and was fined.
After Mainville was charged, Sysco decided it had enough and gave him a letter of termination dated March 4, 2008. The letter stated he had not taken enough care and responsibility for the operation of his trucks “causing unacceptable risk to the safety of yourself, the general public and property.” Sysco said the recent charge was a “culmination of events” that showed his poor judgment and his employment as a driver was terminated.
Mainville argued Sysco “swept through” the normal disciplinary process and he should have been suspended before being fired. He said Sysco didn’t give him the training it said it would as part of his earlier discipline and maintained he hadn’t done anything wrong in either incident.
The board found though Sysco didn’t provide a “regulated retraining” after the 2007 incident, the coaching for his anger was appropriate for what it identified as a problem with road rage. Considering Mainville’s refusal to admit any wrongdoing, the board was skeptical more formal retraining would have been effective. This was supported by his actions in the second incident, which went against the coaching he had received to leave the road if he felt things getting out of hand.
Corrective discipline unlikely to be effective
The board noted suspension is a form of corrective discipline, much as retraining would be. However, it agreed with Sysco that Mainville showed no inclination to change his attitude or any remorse or admission of wrongdoing in either incident. This made dismissal the only discipline left.
“It is clear that no form of corrective training or discipline would have altered (Mainville’s) opinion of what occurred one iota,” the board said. “An employer has every right to proceed to a dismissal if it fears for the safety of the public and (the employee) and its reputation as in this case.”
The board said it would have considered reinstatement if it had found “a gleam of hope of recognition of fault and remorse” by Mainville, but he “prefers to believe that his way is the only way and will not change.” It dismissed his grievance and upheld his termination.
For more information see:
•Sysco Food Services v. CAW-Canada, Local 414, 2008 CarswellOnt 8029 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
