The grievor was drunk when he was called in to work on a day off. He ran a company vehicle into a concrete barricade. His belated admission that he was an alcoholic and his efforts to sober up prompted the arbitrator to reinstate him with conditions.
A worker at a paper mill was fired after it was discovered that he was drunk when he crashed a company vehicle at the plant during an overnight shift.
G.T. began working at the employer’s paper mill in 1981. He started as a labourer. G.T. worked his way through various positions at the mill from dump truck operator through various operator positions in the mill to bulldozer operator. He was working as a chip handler when he was fired in 2009.
May 14, 2009 was an “off day” for G.T. However, at 4:30 p.m. he took a call asking him if he wanted to fill in for another worker on the overnight shift. While G.T. could have refused the request, he did not. He came into work in an impaired state after consuming a considerable amount of alcohol.
G.T. completed some routine tasks. At about 9 p.m. he got into a company pickup truck to drive to another location on mill property.
Crashed pickup truck
G.T. crashed the truck into a 3,200-pound, pre-cast concrete barricade. The truck was moving at a speed sufficient to shift the barricade on impact. The vehicle’s airbags deployed so that G.T. was spared any serious injury. The vehicle sustained significant damage. Repairs to the vehicle cost about $9,000.
When he reported the accident, G.T was asked if he had been drinking. He admitted that he may have had a few beers.
G.T. was contrite and apologetic at a meeting held on May 20 to discuss the incident. He said that he should not have accepted the call to come in to work. He denied that he was drunk. He also denied that he had a drinking problem that required accommodation.
Another meeting was held on May 29. At that meeting, G.T. was fired. The letter of termination said that G.T.’s behaviour constituted gross irresponsibility. The mill is a complex operation filled with expensive and potentially dangerous equipment and machines. It is a safety-sensitive operation. The employer must be able to rely on the ability of employees to work effectively with little supervision. In the circumstances, the employer could no longer trust G.T. to work without endangering himself and/or other workers.
Upon receipt of the letter of termination, G.T. told the employer that he was an alcoholic. The company took the view that G.T.’s admission was too late and that his misconduct was so serious in any case that the termination was warranted.
The union grieved.
The union said that the employer did not have just cause to terminate G.T. In any case, the union said, the employer was required to address G.T.’s admission of alcoholism and to accommodate him up to the point of undue hardship. In this case, conditional reinstatement featuring ongoing treatment for G.T. was appropriate.
The Arbitrator agreed.
Completed 12-step program
“[G.T.] has come to understand the nature of his alcohol dependency and the effort required to manage his dependency. He has taken the appropriate steps to face his addiction and he has been successful for a sustained period in doing so. He has completed the 12-step AA program.”
The Arbitrator said that G.T.’s efforts at rehabilitation and the duration of his sobriety gave some assurance of his ability to remain sober.
G.T.’s years of service were also a significant factor in favour of his reinstatement, the Arbitrator said.
“[G.T.] has worked for the Employer for virtually his whole adult life. He has no skills outside of what he has learnt at work in the jobs he has performed for the Employer. His prospects of employment elsewhere are minimal, given his skills and his age. The combination of these elements leads to the conclusion that the grievor should be reinstated in employment, notwithstanding the seriousness of the misconduct.”
In view of the employer’s significant capital investments in machines and equipment and its obligation to ensure workplace health and safety, evidence of G.T.’s sobriety was a reasonable condition of reinstatement. Ongoing testing to ensure his sobriety for a period of time after his reinstatement was also reasonable.
The grievance was accepted. G.T. was to be reinstated without backpay.
Reference: Domtar Inc. and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 74. Christopher Albertyn — Sole Arbitrator. J. James Nyman for the Union. John D. West for the Employer. July 20, 2011. 17 pp.
