Fired for the off-duty operation of a company vehicle after consuming alcohol, a dedicated, 21-year coach operator grieved his termination.
Answering his employer’s call to help cover relief shifts in Thompson, Manitoba, R.L. relocated to the town where he stayed in the drivers’ dormitory and worked one month straight with only three days off.
Returning from a trip on a Friday afternoon without another booking until the following Monday, R.L. found himself in the unaccustomed position of having three days off.
Given permission to use the company truck and seeking recreation, R.L. settled in at a licensed chain restaurant where he played the video lottery terminals for about five hours during which time he consumed three or four beers.
Returning from the restaurant in the truck, R.L. stopped at a pizza franchise for takeout. While waiting in the lobby for his order, he was approached by R.C.M.P. officers who offered to drive him back to the dormitory. R.L. was not asked for a breath sample nor was he charged with any offence.
Nevertheless, the company was advised of the incident the next day. A disciplinary meeting was held three days later and R.L. was terminated.
Logged many miles
The employer had no issues with R.L.’s employment overall and acknowledged that he was a good worker. He had logged a lot of miles for the company and made sacrifices, including moving to Thompson — a town where, the company’s labour relations manager conceded, it would be difficult to find attractive recreation.
Nevertheless, the employer argued that termination was warranted in view of R.L.’s breach of the company’s “Driver’s Rule Book” and its “Alcohol and Drug Policy.” Rules and policies must be applied consistently, the employer said. Operators work in an unsupervised environment where the employer must be able to place complete trust in an operator’s compliance with the rules. Operating a company vehicle while under the influence of alcohol was a breach of company policy that also exposed the company to the risk of damage to its reputation.
R.L., the union said, was a good employee with a near-blameless 21-year record of service to his employer and the public. He was co-operative and remorseful at the disciplinary meeting and made assurances that if he was reinstated he would never allow a similar incident to happen.
In the wake of the incident, he sought out and began receiving treatment for gambling problems and abstained from alcohol for one month. He had never operated a bus with alcohol in his system, R.L. said, testifying that he had been randomly tested for drugs and alcohol many times on trips to the United States over the course of his career.
The union asked that R.L. be reinstated. He had accepted responsibility for his actions, acknowledged the importance of the employer’s concerns and taken action to address the concerns identified by the incident.
Conditional reinstatement
The Arbitrator found that termination was excessive in the circumstances and ruled that R.L. should be reinstated subject to a number of conditions, including that R.L. submit to any alcohol tests requested by the employer for a period of one year following the issuing of the award.
The Arbitrator acknowledged the importance of the employer’s rules and accepted that the need to be able to trust a largely unsupervised employee forms a significant aspect of this particular employment relationship.
R.L. “is a long term employee with a record the Employer considered very good. He is a hard worker who has driven many miles without safety issues. He readily acknowledged the importance of the rules and policy and accepted responsibility, demonstrating remorse, without hesitation. I am satisfied from his evidence that he is proud to be a [company] employee. I accept that he was upset with himself for his conduct and will make every effort to comply with Employer rules and policies in the future. Moreover, he has taken steps to deal with his gambling issue and offers to co-operate with the Employer by accepting future testing and releasing his counsellors to communicate with the Employer …”
