Driver claimed depression made him do it
A Hamilton bus driver’s termination for stealing money from the fare box has been upheld by an arbitrator.
Fred Reader, 53, drove Hamilton city buses for 19 years. About twice a week between March 2005 and March 2006, he told passengers there was a problem with the fare box and asked them to put fares into an envelope. Each time, he kept about $20 for himself, which added up to about $2,000 over the year.
Reader, who had no previous disciplinary problems, claimed he had a problem for which he needed professional help. He was under stress from a failing marriage and he claimed he had low self-esteem. After examining him, a psychiatrist diagnosed him with clinical depression, which he was in denial about. The psychiatrist said the combination of depression and denial prompted compulsive behaviour such as the theft, which gave him something to control as he felt helpless in his home life. Reader’s union claimed his condition created a “sufficient displacement of responsibility” that lesser discipline should be implemented so he could be given a chance to rehabilitate.
The city said termination was appropriate as his actions took place more than 100 times over a year and had to be “methodical, organized and premeditated.” It also said though the medical opinion was Reader’s condition could be treated, he had not made any attempts to start a treatment program in over seven months since his termination. Because of this, the arbitrator agreed he couldn’t be trusted with the responsibilities of the bus driver position. Honesty is extremely important in fare collection and since he was still suffering from his untreated condition which led to the thefts, he would have “ample opportunity to revert to the dishonest conduct.”
The arbitrator pointed out the collective agreement did not allow for consideration of mitigating circumstances or a lesser penalty for theft of fares. Dismissal was the only discipline stipulated for such misconduct.
“Even if (Reader’s) degree of responsibility is reduced, it is not eliminated or reduced so significantly to suggest that the employer’s response was not rational or appropriate,” the arbitrator said. “His condition, however said, cannot shield him from the consequences of his conduct.” See Hamilton (City) v. A.T.U., Local 107, 2006 CarswellOnt 8842 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
Fred Reader, 53, drove Hamilton city buses for 19 years. About twice a week between March 2005 and March 2006, he told passengers there was a problem with the fare box and asked them to put fares into an envelope. Each time, he kept about $20 for himself, which added up to about $2,000 over the year.
Reader, who had no previous disciplinary problems, claimed he had a problem for which he needed professional help. He was under stress from a failing marriage and he claimed he had low self-esteem. After examining him, a psychiatrist diagnosed him with clinical depression, which he was in denial about. The psychiatrist said the combination of depression and denial prompted compulsive behaviour such as the theft, which gave him something to control as he felt helpless in his home life. Reader’s union claimed his condition created a “sufficient displacement of responsibility” that lesser discipline should be implemented so he could be given a chance to rehabilitate.
The city said termination was appropriate as his actions took place more than 100 times over a year and had to be “methodical, organized and premeditated.” It also said though the medical opinion was Reader’s condition could be treated, he had not made any attempts to start a treatment program in over seven months since his termination. Because of this, the arbitrator agreed he couldn’t be trusted with the responsibilities of the bus driver position. Honesty is extremely important in fare collection and since he was still suffering from his untreated condition which led to the thefts, he would have “ample opportunity to revert to the dishonest conduct.”
The arbitrator pointed out the collective agreement did not allow for consideration of mitigating circumstances or a lesser penalty for theft of fares. Dismissal was the only discipline stipulated for such misconduct.
“Even if (Reader’s) degree of responsibility is reduced, it is not eliminated or reduced so significantly to suggest that the employer’s response was not rational or appropriate,” the arbitrator said. “His condition, however said, cannot shield him from the consequences of his conduct.” See Hamilton (City) v. A.T.U., Local 107, 2006 CarswellOnt 8842 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
