Company wanted to know reason for driver's ban from town in delivery area after legal trouble
This instalment of You Make the Call looks at a delivery driver who contested a suspension he received after his company learned of pending charges against him. Lafarge Canada Inc. is a supplier of construction materials to customers across Canada. Justin Forbes worked as a driver delivering materials from Lafarge’s plant in Barrie, Ont.
On June 13, 2005, Forbes requested a medical leave of absence for about a week and produced a doctor’s note. He said he had been banned from going to Thornton, Ont., which was in the delivery area, as well as the Toronto area, but didn’t explain why. On June 22, he returned to work and told Lafarge he was no longer barred from going to Thornton.
On July 7, Forbes was in Thornton to make a delivery when he was pulled over by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), who were acting on an outdated bail recognizance which had originally restricted him from being in Thornton. When Forbes showed he was now allowed in the town, the OPP released him without charges. However, another Lafarge employee witnessed the incident and reported it to the plant manager.
Forbes explained the situation and assured the company he didn’t have any restrictions which would affect his work. However, he was told he would be “held out of service pending further investigation” of the matters which led to the incident with the police. The company also expressed disappointment he hadn’t informed management of his original restriction, which affected his ability to work within Lafarge’s delivery area.
At a meeting on July 11, Forbes provided a letter from the OPP stating he had been pulled over because of outdated information and a copy of his revised recognizance order which specified his restriction from a specific address in Thornton rather than the whole town. He did not say the reason for the order based on advice from his lawyer.
Lafarge felt the information was inadequate and it needed to know the reason for the restriction so it could evaluate any potential risk to the company. The company made it clear Forbes wasn’t being disciplined, but until it learned more details, he would remain off work.
Was Lafarge within its rights to prevent Forbes from working until it could find out why he had been banned from Thornton?
OR
Was Lafarge not entitled to further information and shouldn’t have kept Forbes from working?
If you said Lafarge was within its rights to prevent Forbes from working until it could find out more information, you’re right.
The arbitrator said that, normally, an employee’s refusal to provide information about criminal charges unrelated to work is not a reason for discipline. However, the detention of the OPP gave Lafarge reason to think there was a potential risk to its operations. From the company’s perspective, there had been a restriction placed on Forbes which could affect the performance of his duties in Thornton, an important part of Lafarge’s operation. Even the updated order still indicated a connection between the charges and Lafarge’s area of operations. The company had “its own legitimate interest and stake in his legal difficulties.” Without knowing the reason for the ban, Lafarge couldn’t properly assess the risks of allowing Forbes to continue to work.
“Although (Forbes) might well have carried on his normal work without interruption but for the improper detention by the OPP,” the arbitrator said, “once the company became aware of a problem, it was entitled to pursue the underlying causes, at least, in order to determine the relationship between (Forbes’) legal problems and the original prohibition or ban from the town of Thornton and the continuing ban with respect to an address in Thornton.”
For more information see:
• Lafarge Canada Inc. v. I.U.O.E., Local 793, 2007 CarswellOnt 4324 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
On June 13, 2005, Forbes requested a medical leave of absence for about a week and produced a doctor’s note. He said he had been banned from going to Thornton, Ont., which was in the delivery area, as well as the Toronto area, but didn’t explain why. On June 22, he returned to work and told Lafarge he was no longer barred from going to Thornton.
On July 7, Forbes was in Thornton to make a delivery when he was pulled over by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), who were acting on an outdated bail recognizance which had originally restricted him from being in Thornton. When Forbes showed he was now allowed in the town, the OPP released him without charges. However, another Lafarge employee witnessed the incident and reported it to the plant manager.
Forbes explained the situation and assured the company he didn’t have any restrictions which would affect his work. However, he was told he would be “held out of service pending further investigation” of the matters which led to the incident with the police. The company also expressed disappointment he hadn’t informed management of his original restriction, which affected his ability to work within Lafarge’s delivery area.
At a meeting on July 11, Forbes provided a letter from the OPP stating he had been pulled over because of outdated information and a copy of his revised recognizance order which specified his restriction from a specific address in Thornton rather than the whole town. He did not say the reason for the order based on advice from his lawyer.
Lafarge felt the information was inadequate and it needed to know the reason for the restriction so it could evaluate any potential risk to the company. The company made it clear Forbes wasn’t being disciplined, but until it learned more details, he would remain off work.
Was Lafarge within its rights to prevent Forbes from working until it could find out why he had been banned from Thornton?
OR
Was Lafarge not entitled to further information and shouldn’t have kept Forbes from working?
If you said Lafarge was within its rights to prevent Forbes from working until it could find out more information, you’re right.
The arbitrator said that, normally, an employee’s refusal to provide information about criminal charges unrelated to work is not a reason for discipline. However, the detention of the OPP gave Lafarge reason to think there was a potential risk to its operations. From the company’s perspective, there had been a restriction placed on Forbes which could affect the performance of his duties in Thornton, an important part of Lafarge’s operation. Even the updated order still indicated a connection between the charges and Lafarge’s area of operations. The company had “its own legitimate interest and stake in his legal difficulties.” Without knowing the reason for the ban, Lafarge couldn’t properly assess the risks of allowing Forbes to continue to work.
“Although (Forbes) might well have carried on his normal work without interruption but for the improper detention by the OPP,” the arbitrator said, “once the company became aware of a problem, it was entitled to pursue the underlying causes, at least, in order to determine the relationship between (Forbes’) legal problems and the original prohibition or ban from the town of Thornton and the continuing ban with respect to an address in Thornton.”
For more information see:
• Lafarge Canada Inc. v. I.U.O.E., Local 793, 2007 CarswellOnt 4324 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
