Employers policies outlined how to handle road rage incidents, but driver didn't follow them
An Ontario arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a truck driver who failed to follow company policy and was involved in a road rage incident.
Marcel Frechette, 48, drove a truck for Air Liquide Canada, a provider of gases, technologies and services for industry and health companies. Frechette had driven large trucks since 1994.
Air Liquide trained its truck drivers on the importance of having self-control, the ability to remain “calm and efficient in conflict or crisis situations” and resolve problems. This was important because the company had previously dealt with bad drivers, and their trucks were branded with the company name and often contained explosive gas.
The company code of conduct also stipulated that employees needed to show good judgment, common sense and “commit to the highest standards of conduct in dealing with other employees, customers, suppliers, communities and stockholders.” Frechette was familiar with the code of conduct as well as safety training that stressed leaving space between trucks and other drivers, courtesy, and lack of aggression.
In addition, the Ontario Ministry of Transport handbook for trucks, which Air Liquide provided to drivers if asked and reviewed with Frechette, stated that drivers should stay in their vehicle and lock the doors if confronted by an angry driver.
In 2009, the company showed Frechette and other drivers a video on road rage and gave them an action card that discussed the importance of being aware of triggers, remaining in control and not reacting to other drivers’ behaviour. They were told to avoid road ragers by keeping their doors locked and windows up and staying in their vehicle.
In 2012, Air Liquide was contacted by a truck driver from another company who said Frechette had been tailgating him, then passed him and pulled in closely in front of him. Air Liquide coached Frechetted about the incident but didn’t discipline him.
On Jan. 31, 2014, Frechette was driving an Air Liquide truck on an expressway near Toronto. According to Frechette, he tried to merge onto the expressway when another vehicle cut in front of him, pulled to the left and stopped in front of him. He was running out of ramp, so he tried to merge, but the driver of the other vehicle gave him the finger, drove in front of him and braked hard. He said the other driver then jumped out of his car and approached the truck.
Frechette claimed he wasn’t thinking and was emotional, so he jumped out of the truck and approached the other driver. He then punched the other driver, knocking him unconscious and requiring him to call paramedics. Later, when police arrived and assessed the situation, they charged Frechette with assault.
Frechette's supervisor arranged for another driver to pick up the truck at the scene and then picked Frechette up at the police station. Frechette told him “I never should have got out of the motor vehicle.”
On Feb. 7, Air Liquide terminated Frechette’s employment for not following his training, breaching company policy and his act of physical aggression while on duty. The union argued Frechette was not the aggressor and he shouldn’t have been expected to remain in the truck to get assaulted when the other driver approached.
Frechette acknowledged he felt a “bit of anger” and apprehension and it was a “knee jerk reaction to get out,” but he was the one attacked and got fired for it.
The other driver filed a civil action against Frechette and Air Liquide, and the judge in that case found the driver approached Frechette’s truck yelling and waving his arms, but didn’t threaten to strike Frechette. The judge also found Frechette would not have been vulnerable if he had remained in his truck and called police. However, the judge found Frechette didn’t intend bodily harm and was defending himself.
The arbitrator agreed with the judge’s findings that the other driver cut Frechette’s truck off and drove dangerously, but found Frechette acted inappropriately afterwards.
“What happened when the vehicles were stopped is of less concern to me than it was to the trial judge, because the attention of (Air Liquide) is on the fact that (Frechette) ignored all of his training and got out of his truck,” said the arbitrator. “He opened himself to the danger of violence, with serious consequences to himself, the (other driver), and the company.”
