Driver's account didn't jibe with bus camera footage
This edition of You Make the Call features a bus driver who got into trouble after she looked at her cellphone while driving.
Cheryl Lebrun was a bus driver for the HandyDART bus service, a door-to-door transit service for people with disabilities in the Vancouver area who weren’t able to use regular transit. Lebrun’s duties included driving a minibus and she had no discipline on her record over 21 years of service.
The bus company’s employee handbook included a policy banning the use of personal cellphones or any non-company-issued electronic device while operating a company vehicle. This was in line with the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, which also prohibits cellphone use while driving.
Dec. 20, 2012, was a cold, slushy and wet day in Vancouver. Lebrun was driving an empty HandyDART bus when she turned left and struck a parked vehicle. Lebrun called the office to report the accident, took pictures of the scene and started an incident report. Another employee helped pry the bus’ front bumper from the tire so Lebrun could drive the bus to the shop.
Damage to the bus and the car totalled about $18,000.
Lebrun indicated on the incident report that at the time of the accident, the road was wet with slush, lighting was dim, and it was raining hard. She said she saw the parked car at the last minute and tried to swerve, but then she could only try to brake before hitting the car.
Four days later, the operations manager and road supervisor met with Lebrun to discuss the accident. They told her nothing had been decided yet and her truthfulness during the interview would help decide the outcome.
Lebrun maintained that she couldn’t see where she was turning and tried to swerve before hitting the parked car. She said she was distracted by the weather and then also mentioned “by maybe” looking at her cellphone.
Management viewed video of the accident captured by a camera on the bus that showed the driver and the area in front of the vehicle. The clip showed Lebrun taking her right hand off the steering wheel just before she turned left, reaching into her coat pocket, and pulling out her cellphone. She opened her phone and looked down at her screen for nearly three seconds, during which she crossed the lanes of the road she was on and turned left. She took the corner too wide and rear-ended the car that appeared to be parked legally and in full view from the driver’s seat of the bus.
In the video, Lebrun appeared to look up just before impact. The monitoring technology showed she applied the brakes just before hitting the parked car, but the bus made no lateral motion to indicate she swerved in an attempt to avoid the car.
Lebrun and her union steward refused to watch the video because they said such video was only to be used for coaching employees, not discipline. The operations manager and road supervisor followed up with more questions and Lebrun stated she had been waiting for a message from her brother about a “serious family matter” and when she heard the cellphone chime, she quickly looked at it. She insisted she didn’t use the phone or talk on it.
The company terminated Lebrun’s employment on Jan. 7, 2013, for reckless conduct while driving a bus and violating company policy on cellphone use while driving. It also mentioned her dishonesty during the investigative meeting when she tried to mislead management on whether she used her phone while driving and how it contributed to the accident.
Lebrun claimed that while she was aware of the law against using cellphones while driving, she thought this referred to talking on the phone, not quickly glancing at it. She acknowledged that following her dismissal she came to understand it was illegal to have a cellphone in one’s hands and looking at it while driving. She said she had a “momentary lapse of judgment” and wouldn’t repeat it.
You Make the Call
Should the company have given the driver another chance?
OR
Did the company have just cause for dismissal?
If you said the company had just cause for dismissal, you’re right. The arbitrator found there was no doubt Lebrun looked at her cellphone while driving and this contributed to her accident. As a professional driver, she was expected to be aware of the law, even if the company didn’t provide specific training on it and the policy.
“(Lebrun’s) actions breached an important and fundamental safety obligation to pay due care and attention at all times while driving,” said the arbitrator, adding that the poor weather conditions at the time made it even more important that she pay attention.
The arbitrator noted that Lebrun’s years of discipline-free service, the fact the accident appeared to be an isolated incident, and her claim it would never happen again worked in her favour, but there were concerns about the lack of judgment she demonstrated in the conditions she faced that day. In addition, Lebrun's attempt to mislead the company’s investigation by omitting her cellphone use in the incident report and denying it in the interview raised further concerns.
The arbitrator determined Lebrun’s dishonesty compounded the seriousness of her unsafe conduct damaged the employment relationship and gave the company reason to skip the progressive discipline approach. The dismissal was upheld.
For more information see:
