CSR | July 2018 | News
Worker deserved discipline but it was his first warning
WEBINARS
Interested in learning more about safety and HR issues directly from the experts? Check out the Canada
Professional Development Centre's live and on-demand webinars discussing topics such as Ontario's
sexual violence and harassment plan act, chemicals in the workplace, and fall protection.
Visit www.cpdcentre.ca/cos for more information.
©2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd
ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-7798-2810-4
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written
permission of the publisher (Thomson Reuters, Media Solutions, Canada).
Canadian Safety Reporter is part of the
Canadian HR Reporter group of publications:
• Canadian HR Reporter — www.hrreporter.com
• Canadian Occupational Safety magazine — www.cos-mag.com
• Canadian Payroll Reporter — www.payroll-reporter.com
• Canadian Employment Law Today — www.employmentlawtoday.com
• Canadian Labour Reporter — www.labour-reporter.com
See carswell.com for information
Safety Reporter
Canadian
www.safety-reporter.com
Published 12 times a year by
Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd.
Subscription rate: $139 per year
Customer Service
Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto)
(800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto)
Fax: (416) 298-5106
E-mail: customersupport.legaltaxcanada@tr.com
Website: www.thomsonreuters.ca
One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4
Director, Media Solutions, Canada Karen Lorimer
Publisher/Managing Editor Todd Humber
Lead Editor Jeffrey R. Smith
Marketing & Audience
Development Manager Robert Symes
rob.symes@thomsonreuters.com
(416) 649-9551
Circulation Co-ordinator Keith Fulford
keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com
(416) 649-9585
Sales Manager Paul Burton
paul.burton@thomsonreuters.com
(416) 649-9928
sources and Skills Development
Canada. He argued he was a
good, reliable worker for 10 years
and didn't deserve dismissal for
breaking what was essentially an
in-house rule, especially since
there were past examples of ve-
hicles with air brakes at the air-
port being driven by employees
who weren't licenced to do so.
The adjudicator found that
having a valid driver's licence
was "a fundamental characteris-
tic of his job description," but it
wasn't the "true and core reason
for his dismissal" — in fact, the
airport accommodated Roy's
licence suspension by assigning
him alternative duties that didn't
involve driving and Roy's super-
visor spent the first day of the
suspension shadowing him in
case Roy faced a situation where
driving a vehicle was necessary.
Instead, Roy was dismissed be-
cause he didn't follow a directive
given to him that he not operate
motorized vehicles at the airport
during the licence suspension.
"The employer, upon learning
of the seven-day driving suspen-
sion, reacted fairly and reason-
ably," said the adjudicator. "If
(Roy) had co-operated and faith-
fully and properly respected his
directions and performed his as-
signed functions for seven days it
would have ended the matter, in
all probabilities. But he did not."
The adjudicator didn't accept
Roy's explanation that he was on
"auto pilot" and didn't realize he
was disobeying the directive, as
"the law presumes that people
act voluntarily" and Roy didn't
provide any evidence that satis-
fied such an excuse. It was just an
attempt to "shed responsibility,"
said the adjudicator.
However, the adjudicator also
found that the airport didn't fol-
low progressive discipline. The
progressive discipline form that
Roy signed stated that "further
disciplinary actions may follow,"
up to and including dismissal.
However, progressive discipline
is supposed to allow an employ-
ee opportunity to recognize his
misconduct and a chance to cor-
rect it. Roy had a good record,
but there wasn't opportunity
to supervise his conduct since
he often worked unsupervised.
The decision to terminate his
employment after his first disci-
plinary notice was "a sudden and
impulsive gesture," the adjudica-
tor said.
The adjudicator determined
that since the airport didn't have
"a practical method of over-
sight" to allow Roy a chance to
improve, it decided to fire him
instead of going the progressive
disciplinary route. As a result,
Roy was unjustly dismissed.
However, the adjudicator con-
sidered Roy's disobedience of a
management directive and dis-
honesty in trying to cover up the
fact he drove the service truck as
damaging the employment re-
lationship. Therefore, instead of
reinstating Roy, the adjudicator
ordered the airport to pay Roy
damages equal to 10 months'
wages plus 18 weeks' wages for
severance pay, less any earnings
from other employment or pay-
ments Roy had already received
from the airport.
For more information see:
• Roy and Northern New
Brunswick Airport Inc., Re,
2018 CarswellNat 1404 (Can.
Lab. Code Adj.).
Dismissal < pg. 5
e airport didn't have 'a practical method of
oversight' to allow worker a chance to improve.
