The grievor did not respond to a co-worker who tried to flag down the grievor's bus between stops. When management tried to investigate the matter, he was at first unco-operative and later verbally disrespectful. He was blameless for the failure to stop the bus, but his later tirade warranted termination.
A transit worker was conditionally reinstated following an incident of alleged unprofessional conduct. He was fired three months later following an altercation with a supervisor. The union grieved both the termination and the discipline from the earlier incident.
A.J. was a bus operator for a municipal transit authority. He became the subject of a complaint from a colleague following an incident on Sept. 2, 2009.
The colleague was inspecting a newly constructed shelter before the stop there had come into service. Two elderly women approached the colleague and told him they would miss the bus if they had to walk the 50 metres down the road to the active temporary stop.
The colleague offered to wave down A.J.’s approaching bus in order to assist the women. However, when he attempted to wave A.J.’s bus down, A.J. ignored the signal and drove on.
The colleague then pursued the bus in a company vehicle and cut it off, compelling A.J. to stop. A.J. did not open the door of the bus to the colleague but instead called the company’s Centralized Information System (CIS) to contact a supervisor. A.J. explained what had occurred and gave a plate number for the car. After confirming that no one was hurt and that there had been no contact between the vehicles, A.J. was told to continue with his route. A.J. complied.
Altercation with riders
Following that incident, A.J. was suspended. The employer then factored in A.J.’s disciplinary record, which at that point included an earlier altercation with riders over a fare dispute, and then terminated A.J. for unprofessional conduct and for failure to follow proper reporting procedures.
However, A.J. was conditionally reinstated on terms requiring him to conduct himself in a professional manner.
On Dec. 2, 2009, a clerk contacted A.J. to pass on a request by his supervisor that A.J. come in to discuss some routine, non-disciplinary matters.
A.J. refused, stating he was preoccupied that day with his role at the company’s charity cookout.
The message went back to A.J. that A.J. was on company time and his presence was requested.
A.J. refused again.
The supervisor went to talk to A.J. in person.
A.J. again said he was unsure about his ability to meet that day. He said too that he could not be interviewed in any case because he was not in uniform.
The supervisor informed A.J. the meeting was routine and it was not required that he be in uniform.
A.J. committed to attending the meeting between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m.
When A.J. failed to show by 6:00, the supervisor again went to ask A.J. in person to meet.
A.J. responded that he was no longer on company time and he would only attend if he had union representation and if he was paid a one-hour minimum.
Contumaciously insubordinate
The exchange deteriorated. In front of about 12 employees, A.J. began yelling at the supervisor and pointing his finger aggressively. A.J. repeated a number of times that he did not want to see or talk to the supervisor. He accused the supervisor of disrespecting him.
A.J. did not want a union representative present at the meeting held the next day to discuss his behaviour. A.J. cut that meeting short claiming he was unwell. He later filed a stress claim with the compensation board.
A.J. was fired. The union grieved the suspension from the earlier incident and the termination.
The Arbitrator allowed the first grievance.
A.J. had in fact followed procedures correctly. A.J. was entitled to use his discretion to determine whether or not to make stops between official marked stops. Allowing for legitimate safety concerns about making an impromptu stop and the ambiguity of the situation from A.J.’s point of view, the Arbitrator said A.J. did not improperly exercise his discretion in that instance.
The Arbitrator also could not fault A.J. for how he handled his colleague’s aggressive pursuit. A.J. followed the proper procedures.
However, the incident on Dec. 2 was another matter. A.J. was “contumaciously insubordinate,” the Arbitrator said.
In front of other members of the bargaining unit, A.J. yelled at the supervisor and engaged in an angry and threatening tirade, the Arbitrator said. “His behaviour was inexplicable, unprovoked and completely unacceptable.”
A.J. maintained his stubborn and willful resistance to his manager’s authority into the meeting on Dec. 3, the Arbitrator said, reinforcing it with a seemingly specious claim to the compensation board. A.J.’s conduct was deserving of discipline. Termination was warranted in the circumstances.
“[A.J.’s] behaviour towards [the supervisor] on Dec. 2 and 3, taken on its own, justifies his discharge. His behaviour started out as calm defiance and escalated to a threatening and abusive rejection of [the supervisor’s] managerial authority. It was clearly exhibited to an audience of co-workers in the context of it being an election day in which the grievor was standing for office. There is no way to understand the grievor’s motivations, because he persisted in providing bare denials of his actions.”
A.J.’s denials of his behaviour underscored his lack of remorse and his refusal to take responsibility for his actions. A.J. could not be reinstated without thoroughly undermining the supervisor who was only trying to do his job, the Arbitrator said.
The termination grievance was dismissed.
