A municipal bus driver was fired after refusing direct orders and then commandeering his bus and neither his 17 years of service nor his written apology were sufficient to mitigate a history of insubordinate conduct.
Six months following a 20-day suspension and his return to work under the terms of a last chance agreement, F.P. was terminated for gross insubordination.
Shortly after beginning his last run of the day on January 18, 2007, F.P. notified transit control that the windshield washer on his bus was not working. Furnished with a new bus about 10 minutes later, F.P. was directed by the transit supervisor to restart his run at the next station in 18 minutes. F.P. responded to the supervisor saying, “That won’t be happening.”
Seeking to address F.P.’s apparent concern about running late, the supervisor advised him to simply book the time at the end of the run. However, F.P. remained defiant, telling the supervisor that he would cut off the run before the end point because he was not about run his last trip late for no reason.
Relieved of duties
F.P. was then ordered to pull in and meet with an on-road supervisor who would relieve him of his duties.
Upon his arrival at the station, F.P. was ordered to hand over the bus and leave the premises. However, after his request to be given a ride back to the garage was denied, F.P. responded, “That’s what I needed to hear, thank you.” F.P. returned to the bus, reversed it without a spotter and then, without authorization, drove the bus back to the garage. F.P. was fired.
Citing his lengthy service with the employer, the union grieved F.P’s termination and sought his reinstatement.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, characterizing F.P.’s conduct as “willful, confrontational and disrespectful insubordination.” F.P.’s actions, the arbitrator said, demonstrated a “basic disregard for the legitimate authority of management.”
Notwithstanding the seriousness of his misconduct, reinstatement under some terms may have been an option were it not for F.P.’s history of insubordinate conduct.
Last chance agreement not in play
At the time of the incident, F.P. was working under the terms of a last chance agreement that provided for his termination in the event of his involvement in “any incident involving harassment, threats, intimidation, physical violence or aggression including verbal insults or abuse towards any employee or client …”
In fact, F.P. was not terminated under the terms of the last chance agreement, which, according to the terms of the agreement, could not be referenced in any other proceedings and was only actionable in the event of specific types of misconduct.
However, the 20-day suspension that accompanied the agreement was part of F.P.’s record. So too was his history of one- and two-day suspensions for insubordination.
Progressive discipline
“The 20-day suspension forms part of [F.P.’s] record that was properly considered by the employer in deciding to terminate and may properly be considered by this Board in deciding whether the Employer had just cause. A 20-day suspension on any employee’s record evidences serious prior misconduct that lays the groundwork for termination as the next step in the chain of progressive discipline, especially if, as here, the 20-day suspension was recently imposed and the subsequent misconduct is serious,” the arbitrator said.
When F.P’s actions were considered in light of his record, there could be “no other conclusion but that his termination was for just cause,” the arbitrator said. “Neither his service nor his written apology causes us to mitigate the penalty.” The grievance was dismissed.
