Arbitrator rejects self-defence argument from bus driver
A Newfoundland transit operator who grabbed a passenger by the throat and was headbutted in return has lost his job, with an arbitrator ruling that his actions constituted workplace violence despite his claims of self-defence.
In a decision dated Oct. 23, 2025, Christopher Peddigrew, upheld the termination of Christopher Reidpath, a 14-month employee of St. John's Transportation Commission (Metrobus), following a physical altercation with a member of the public on Aug.0 11, 2023.
The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1462, argued that Reidpath acted in self-defence but Peddigrew found the operator initiated the physical contact and failed to follow his de-escalation training.
Confrontation with customer
The incident occurred during a layover outside the Village Mall when a verbal exchange over bus routes escalated into a 22-second physical confrontation.
The passenger, referred to as "John Doe," asked Reidpath about bus routes. Video evidence showed the conversation became heated after Reidpath told the passenger, "I don't care what [the other driver] told you," when John Doe mentioned conflicting information from another operator.
As tensions escalated, John Doe stepped closer to Reidpath while yelling. The bus driver then grabbed John Doe near the collar and "almost immediately" moved his grip to the passenger's throat, according to the arbitrator's findings. During the ensuing struggle, John Doe headbutted Reidpath, breaking the skin on his nose and causing bleeding.
Critically, Reidpath continued to re-engage with John Doe verbally for roughly seven minutes after the physical altercation ended, despite opportunities to withdraw. The arbitrator found this demonstrated poor judgment and impulse control.
Training gaps and self-defence claims rejected
The union characterized the employer's position as "victim-blaming," noting Reidpath sustained a bleeding nose from being headbutted during the struggle.
It also said that Metrobus failed to provide adequate training on appropriate use of force while simultaneously expecting operators to handle threatening situations. The employer's Respectful Workplace Policy permitted reasonable force in self-defence but provided no specific guidance on its application.
Peddigrew acknowledged the training gap but found it did not excuse Reidpath's conduct.
"It was not the grievor's lack of training or knowledge with respect to 'appropriate force' or self-defence that caused the Incident," he wrote. Instead, Reidpath "failed to abide by his 'On the Front-Line' training in the moments leading up to the commencement of the physical altercation."
The arbitrator rejected the self-defence argument, stating: "I do not accept that the grievor's professed fear of an imminent physical attack or physical harm was reasonable."
No path back to employment for bus driver
Peddigrew found multiple factors weighed against reducing the penalty. Reidpath was a short-term employee with a prior disciplinary record involving poor judgment with passengers. The arbitrator noted Reidpath failed to express genuine remorse, instead maintaining his actions were justified.
Applying the legal standard from West Vancouver Corp. and ATU, Local 134, the arbitrator quoted: "Bus drivers must have more control over their tempers than ordinary employees. Bus drivers must deal effectively with difficult and even obnoxious passengers. As a generality, if a bus driver cannot do this, he or she is probably unfit for the occupation."
The arbitrator concluded: "The grievor's actions resulted in irreparable damage to the employment relationship and a loss of trust in the grievor's ability to exercise impulse control and execute the judgment required to provide public transit services in a safe manner."
The grievance was denied and the termination upheld.
