A bus driver was fired after colliding with another bus. His apparent recklessness and his refusal to accept responsibility left the arbitrator no basis to vary the penalty.
A municipal transit worker was fired after he executed an illegal U-turn and crashed into another bus. The union grieved.
P.B. had eight years’ service when he was fired in 2010. There were written warnings on his record — one for insubordination, the other for using a cell phone while driving.
P.B. was running late on the afternoon of May 26, 2010. To save time, he avoided a customary turnaround loop and instead made a spontaneous U-turn on the designated high-speed (90 Kph) transit corridor that is reserved for buses.
P.B.’s bus collided with another bus. The other driver was shaken up and taken to hospital. Damage to the two vehicles totalled about $26,000.
P.B. was fired.
The employer said the termination was warranted. The employer acknowledged drivers are fallible and that accidents may happen because of a momentary lapse. However, that was not the case here, the employer said.
P.B. made a deliberate decision that was “reckless” and “bewildering.” He had eroded the employer’s trust in his ability to exercise good judgment.
P.B.’s post-accident dissembling and reluctance to be properly accountable for what happened further undermined the employer’s estimation of P.B.’s credibility and the potential for repairing the employment relationship.
Buddy system
In the immediate aftermath, P.B. said he had not seen the other bus. Later, P.B. said he had seen the other bus and he had anticipated he could rely on the other driver to follow the “buddy system” and let him merge.
He maintained that everyone else made such turns and that there were no signs on the Transitway specifically prohibiting U-turns. P.B. also suggested that the employer bore some responsibility because the training he received was deficient.
Some discipline was warranted, the union conceded. However, the union said, the termination was not warranted because the employer had failed to make out its case for a “gross error in judgment.”
P.B. was not being dishonest, the union said. The difference in P.B.’s stories concerning whether or not he saw the other bus was explainable because he was in shock when he was first interviewed in the immediate aftermath of the accident.
P.B. did see the other bus coming. He thought he had enough time to make the turn and he thought he could count on the other driver to observe the buddy system and slow down. He was wrong.
P.B. was a hard-working employee, the union said. He was running late and concerned about customer reaction. He made a mistake, which he now acknowledged.
That wasn’t enough.
A “gross error in judgment” was an apt characterization of P.B.’s actions, the Arbitrator said.
The Arbitrator said P.B.’s first story — that he did not see the other bus — was most likely the truth. Ultimately, it did not matter.
Either P.B. decided to execute an extremely dangerous manoeuvre based on his assumption about what the other driver would do, or he did not see the other bus and made an “exceedingly reckless” turn and later attempted to save himself by blaming the other driver.
“Both scenarios call into question his judgment and trustworthiness as a bus operator,” the Arbitrator said.
Breathtaking recklessness
The incident itself provided sufficient grounds for termination, the Arbitrator said. P.B.’s unwillingness to be properly accountable for his actions and his efforts to deflect responsibility did not help his case.
“The grievor made a decision of breathtaking recklessness on March 26. 2010. I find it difficult to understand how he would find it appropriate to expend any energy lamenting the failure of the “buddy system,” or the lack of commitment of other drivers to such a system, if he honestly accepted responsibility for his actions. The employer argued that this lack of contrition and lack of awareness of the irresponsibility of his decision underpinned the termination. Both of these factors weigh heavily against the grievor.”
To ensure public safety, the employer must be able to count on its drivers to consistently exercise responsible, focused judgment, the Arbitrator said.
This was not a case where P.B. had a momentary lapse when faced with the need to make a quick decision.
“[P.B.] deliberately and knowingly opted to perform a dangerous and illegal manoeuvre in an exceedingly high-risk area for no other apparent reason than to maintain a schedule and avoid customer complaints.”
This reflected a “serious lack of judgment,” the Arbitrator said. The termination was warranted. The grievance was dismissed.
