Truck driver admitted fault in incident but denied 'extreme negligence'
A worker who struck a co-worker with a truck in the workplace is deserving of discipline but not termination, a federal arbitrator has ruled.
Active Canada is a company in Boisbriand, Que., that delivers trucks manufactured by other companies that are intended for purchases. The worker was hired in 2010, holding several different positions before becoming a yardsman in 2022. The position involved moving trucks around the yard to prepare them for delivery during the night shift.
On Dec. 1, 2023, Active Canada gave the worker a list of about 30 trucks to prepare for the next day. As he began the assignment, the worker noticed two vehicles that were parked in spaces where trucks would normally be parked on that day of the week. He went into the garage and asked the employee-owners of the trucks to move them. Both agreed to do so, but one of them waited a few minutes as he was performing a task.
The worker returned to the yard and continued parking trucks. While he was backing up a truck to park it, he hit the second truck owner, who had just moved his truck and was returning to the garage. The impact threw the co-worker to the ground. According to the worker, he heard a noise, but he didn’t know he had hit the co-worker. He didn’t see anything and resumed reversing the truck, but the co-worker screamed and the worker stopped and got out. The co-worker got up and started walking to the garage and the worker accompanied him before going to find a manager.
The worker returned to parking trucks for about 20 minutes, but management then asked him to complete an incident report and go home. He was suspended with pay pending an investigation.
Workplace investigation
During the investigation, the company reviewed video surveillance footage from the parking area that showed the worker holding papers in his left hand – the list of trucks to move - when he hit the co-worker, who appeared to be in his blind spot. The company believed this suggested that the worker was distracted as he was moving the truck.
The worker admitted fault in the incident but denied "extreme negligence," arguing that factors such as poor lighting, the blind spot, and the co-worker's dark clothing contributed to the accident.
Following the investigation, Active Canada dismissed the worker on Dec. 22, citing negligence and claiming the incident could have been prevented.
The union grieved the dismissal, arguing that there were other factors that mitigated the worker’s conduct and he had a clean disciplinary record, making termination unjustified.
The arbitrator found that the worker committed a fault arising from a lack of vigilance but that it didn’t amount to gross negligence. The evidence, including surveillance footage, supported the worker’s account that he adhered to the yard’s 15 km/h speed limit and that the co-worker was in the truck’s blind spot at the time of the impact.
Carelessness not negligence: arbitrator
However, the arbitrator noted that the worker knew the co-worker was in the vicinity, having asked him moments earlier to move his vehicle. This knowledge required heightened caution, which the worker didn’t exercise adequately, the arbitrator said.
The arbitrator examined claims that darkness and the co-worker’s actions contributed to the incident. While some lights weren’t functioning, surveillance footage showed sufficient lighting in the yard. Additionally, the co-worker wasn’t required to wear reflective clothing and didn’t deviate from any prescribed paths, said the arbitrator in finding no culpability on the co-worker’s part.
The arbitrator noted that disciplinary measures must aim to correct behaviour and require justification of an “irremediable breakdown in the bond of trust.” There was no evidence that the worker’s conduct demonstrated systematic irresponsibility or a conscious disregard for safety, the arbitrator said, noting that he had a clean disciplinary record and extensive experience performing similar tasks without prior incidents.
“The incident was the result of unintentional fault, arising from a lack of care or vigilance on the part of the [worker],” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator determined that termination was excessive under the circumstances, finding that a one-month unpaid suspension was a more appropriate response that balanced the seriousness of the incident with the worker’s overall employment history and the lack of evidence suggesting a complete breakdown of trust.
Active Canada was ordered to reinstate the worker with compensation for lost salary and benefits between the dismissal and reinstatement, except for the period of the one-month suspension.
