Encountering black ice while navigating her bus through a snow storm, a coach driver lost control of her vehicle and hit the ditch. While there were no serious injuries, the employer terminated the one-year employee alleging that her lack of proper judgment contributed to the accident and that she failed to follow established procedures both before and after the accident.
Driving her coach westbound on Highway 567 east of Airdrie, Alberta early on October 14, 2009, A.M. encountered icy, snow-covered roads and blowing snow. Slowing to about 55 kilometres per hour, at one point, A.M. attempted to correct the coach’s rightward drift. However, she lost control of the bus, which fish-tailed and then spun 180 degrees, finally coming to rest in the ditch on the right-hand side of the road.
Seeking to lend assistance, a safety manager with an allied school bus company arrived on the scene to discover the bus down a steep embankment. No flares or triangular warning markers had been deployed.
No control over the situation
Walking around the bus, the safety manager noted that there was snow pushed up at the back of the bus blocking the vehicle’s exhaust. She also noticed that there were no footprints other than hers — an indication that A.M. had not inspected the vehicle after the crash. Encountering A.M. — who was not wearing her high-visibility safety vest as required in the circumstances — the safety manager was told by her that three passengers had already been picked up by a rescue bus, despite the fact that none of the passengers had filled out “loading slips” as required after an accident. The remaining passengers had elected to stay with their luggage at the scene. The safety manager called the rescue bus back and arranged to load all the passengers and their luggage after ensuring they had each completed a loading slip. Then told by A.M. that she was planning to leave the scene before the tow truck arrived, the safety manager came to the view that A.M. was at a loss about what to do, was not following proper procedures and had failed to exercise any control over the situation.
The company’s investigator came to similar conclusions. It also came to light that A.M. had failed to maintain her daily log and that she failed to complete the required pre-trip inspection report when she took over the bus on the day of the accident.
A.M. was fired.
The union grieved, arguing that termination was excessive. A.M. had not been driving recklessly. Black ice, poor visibility and wind were factors in the accident. So too was the condition of the bus, which, records indicated, had some maintenance issues with the respect to suspension problems and the grip on the steering wheel.
A.M. didn’t deploy the warning markers because she didn’t think they were necessary. The bus had come to rest at some distance from the road, the union said, and neither the safety manager, nor the police attending the scene commented on the need to deploy the markers. A.M. didn’t mention either the wind or the mechanical issues at the time because she was rattled by the event, which she found traumatic. A.M.’s unsettled state also accounted for her failure to get the passengers to fill out the loading slips, the union said.
Conduct “well short” of reasonable expectations
A.M.’s explanations were insufficient. Her conduct fell “well short” of what could reasonably be expected from a professional driver, the Arbitrator said.
The Arbitrator accepted that the bus had some mechanical issues, but was not persuaded that the identified problems had any bearing on the accident.
Icy roads and weather may have been a factor, but if the wind was so strong as to blow the bus off the road, A.M.’s obligations according to the Driver’s Rule Book were to take the measures necessary to avoid an accident.
However, while acknowledging that drivers are not perfect and that accidents do happen, A.M.’s conduct following the accident was not excusable.
The requirement to place flares/markers after an accident is not optional, the Arbitrator said. The fact that neither the police nor the safety manager deployed the markers did not excuse A.M. from her obligation to do so.
The failure to collect loading slips, to wear her safety vest and to properly check the vehicle after the accident were all significant failures, the Arbitrator said.
No diagnosis of shock
“It is clear that [A.M.] did not discharge all of her responsibilities as the operator in charge of the bus after this accident. [A.M.] testified that she was ‘in shock’ and ‘shaken’ by the events, in explanation for her conduct both on the day of the accident and when she wrote her first account of events. There is no evidence [A.M.] was injured. There was no medical diagnosis of shock. [A.M.] did manage to do some of the things required of an operator after an accident. I accept this was a traumatic event, as is any motor vehicle accident, but I don’t accept that the stress of an event like this is a reasonable excuse for a failure of a professional driver to deal with a situation and comply with the rules.”
The employer was entitled to expect a high standard with respect to compliance with the rules, the Arbitrator said. “The Grievor’s actions here, taken together, fall well short of the conduct required of a well trained professional driver.”
The grievance was dismissed.
