This instalment of You Make the Call involves a truck driver who was fired following four accidents.
The worker was hired as a commercial tractor trailer driver in August 2014 by Atlantic Transportation. Atlantic had a policy on driving clearances that stated “all persons must be aware of the maximum height and width of any vehicle they may operate,” as well as ground clearance, and were prohibited from operating a vehicle where the minimum clearance of the vehicle could come into contact with any object. The policy allowed for a four-step discipline process in the event of its violation, from verbal warning to dismissal.
Another Atlantic policy covered post-accident procedures and required “all persons involved in any accident/incident …shall make themselves available for a meeting with an agent of this company’s insurance company, if requested to do so.” Discipline for violation of this policy involved just two steps — a written warning with suspension and dismissal.
On Aug. 19, 2014 — eight days after he started work — the worker backed up his trailer onto the onsite scales after unloading. His driver-side mirror hit a bollard at the scale entrance and broke. He was given a replacement mirror from a mechanic friend and he reported the incident to the safety director when he returned to the yard. Though he didn’t report the incident immediately, he was told there would be no discipline.
Three days later, on Aug. 22, the worker damaged a trailer parked by a back door when doing a difficult blind-side turn. The truck itself wasn’t damaged and he didn’t think there was much damage to the trailer. The worker wasn’t disciplined for the incident.
The worker was involved in a third incident on Jan. 8, 2015, when he was driving a company truck on an expressway. He moved the truck into the passing lane and traffic stopped suddenly in front of him. He hit the brakes hard, causing the truck to fishtail, slide, and hit the median. Police were called and an official accident report was filed. He was suspended for two days for the “at fault” accident.
One month later, on Feb. 9, the worker was leaving the company yard when he hit a mailbox with his truck. The mailbox fell off and hit a co-worker’s car. The worker claimed he didn’t realize what happened and didn’t find out about it until he returned to the yard. When he saw a surveillance video of the incident, he wasn’t convinced it was from the time he left the yard and therefore questioned whether it was actually he who did it. The worker was initially told he was receiving a three-day suspension, but when he returned to work after serving it, the safety director informed him his employment was terminated.
You Make the Call
Was termination unwarranted?
OR
Was there just cause for termination?
If you said termination was unwarranted, you’re right. The adjudicator found that the final incident involving the mailbox did not warrant discipline as it wasn’t clear enough that the worker was the one responsible — it could have been one of several company trucks in the surveillance video and the worker said it wasn’t at the time he left the yard. In addition, the worker wasn’t disciplined for the first two incidents, so the employer essentially condoned them and couldn’t rely on them later as part of the case for dismissal — though they could have led to discipline under the driving clearance policy had the employer opted to take that route. As a result, only the January 2015 car accident was part of the worker’s disciplinary history.
The worker was disciplined for the at-fault car accident, receiving a two-day suspension. However, since it was the first incident for which the worker was disciplined, he should have been given a warning under the employer’s progressive discipline policy, not a suspension.
Either way, by the time of the February mailbox incident, the worker only had one instance of misconduct on his record. Rather than giving a warning or suspension, the employer didn’t follow its own policy by moving to the final step of its progressive discipline policy — termination of employment.
“The (worker) submitted that he should have been given the opportunity to correct his behaviour,” the adjudicator said. “I agree with that submission, noting that this is precisely the intent of a progressive discipline system, such as that adopted by the (employer). The intent is to provide an opportunity for employees to learn from their mistakes and to provide them with an opportunity to correct their conduct.”
The adjudicator determined the worker’s dismissal was unjust because of the employer’s failure to follow its progressive discipline policy and “imposed a penalty for a relatively minor incident, which was the harshest one available.”
For more information see:
