Driver didn’t like reassignment to truck he thought was dirty and required time to charge up, but employer had right to give him a lawful assignment
A Saskatchewan worker who was fired after getting into a verbal altercation with his manager and refusing to follow instructions has had his unjust dismissal complaint dismissed by an adjudicator.
Earl Boyd was hired by Epp’s Trucking, a company based in Saskatoon, Sask., that hauls cargoes including agricultural products from farms, in November 2014. He was hired to be a truck driver and, since he didn’t own his own truck, Epp’s assigned him a company-owned truck to use. He often used company truck #140, though not always.
On Dec. 23, 2017, Boyd had an assignment in which he delivered goods in company truck #169. He finished the delivery and was on his way back to the Epp’s terminal when he received a message instructing him to switch over to truck #140, his usual truck. When Boyd arrived at the terminal, however, truck #140 wasn’t plugged in and it was a cold day.
Boyd tried to start the truck, but couldn’t get it going. He asked some mechanics to put a charger on the truck’s battery to try to give it enough of a charge to get it started.
Boyd texted the Epp’s after-hours dispatch number to advise that he wouldn’t be able to take truck #140 after all because it wasn’t charged and the sleeping area was dirty —it hadn’t been cleaned as he had requested earlier. He indicated that his assigned loads should be transferred to truck #169, the one he had already been using that day.
Manager arrived to check out the situation
The owner and manager of Epp’s, Steven Balzer, received the text message from Boyd and went to the Epp’s terminal to clarify what was going on. When he arrived, he saw a mechanic putting the battery charger on truck #140 and Boyd filling truck #169 with diesel exhaust fluid.
Balzer approached Boyd and told him that since truck #140 was now being charged, Boyd could wait and take it on his assignment once charging was complete. Boyd complained that #140 wasn’t clean, but Balzer thought #169 — which Boyd had been operating that day — wasn't any cleaner. Boyd didn’t appreciate the observation and began speaking louder, continually interrupting Blazer. They were standing near the large doorway of the terminal where anyone nearby could see and hear them.
Eventually, the two men began shouting at each other and Boyd yelled, “Talk all you want — I’m continuing to work,” then walked towards truck #169. Balzer instructed Boyd to take #140 once it was charged, but Boyd gave him the finger and directed an obscenity at him. Boyd then pushed the button to close the terminal doors, which left Balzer outside while Boyd was inside.
Balzer went to a smaller door to get back into the terminal, but as he went in Boyd was coming out at the same time. They bumped chests as they both entered the doorway at the same time.
Balzer told Boyd, “You are done working here and you are not going to work for me.” He asked Boyd to leave the premises and he gave the keys to truck #169 to another employee with the instructions that Boyd was not to take the truck and he could remove his personal items from it when he was ready to leave. Soon after, Boyd went home.
Balzer believed the chest-bump in the doorway was assault and called the police to report it, though after some discussion the police didn’t get involved. Boyd filed a complaint for unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code, arguing that he couldn’t follow the instructions to use truck #140 because it wouldn’t start and most of the arguing was because of the lack of cleaning in its interior. Epp’s responded that it had just cause for dismissal as Boyd had refused to follow lawful instructions and verbally abused the owner of the company.
Employer has right to assign work as it sees fit
The adjudicator found that Boyd had the right to discuss with the manager the decision to have him switch trucks and to express his concerns over why he didn’t want to. However, the company had the right to assign work to its drivers and also to assign whichever truck it deemed necessary for the task.
The adjudicator also found that Boyd became unnecessarily angry and abusive in the altercation. While truck #140 may have needed some cleaning and Boyd may have requested for it to be cleaned, Balzer testified that it was at least as clean or cleaner than the truck Boyd had been using and wanted to continue to use that day, so the truck’s cleanliness didn’t warrant a refusal to switch trucks and disobey an order from a superior, the adjudicator said.
In addition, the verbally abusive behaviour Boyd displayed when he didn’t get his way was a reason for concern for the manager, and it was clear that Boyd’s termination was for both his verbal abuse and refusal to follow instructions, said the adjudicator.
The adjudicator noted that the chest bump between the two men in the doorway was incidental physical contact and didn’t constitute an assault, but there was no indication this factored into the decision to terminate Boyd’s employment anyway.
“Mr. Boyd may not have agreed with the manager’s decision to reassign him from truck #169 to truck #140 and may have felt that the truck was not properly cleaned, but neither of these warranted his refusal to follow the instructions or to become verbally abusive,” said the adjudicator.
The adjudicator determined that Epp’s had just cause to terminate Boyd’s employment for insubordination and verbal abuse of his manager, and dismissed Boyd’s complaint.
For more information see:
• Boyd and Epp’s Trucking Inc., Re, 2018 CarswellNat 4176 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.).
