Canadian Safety Reporter

5 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 News | July 2018 | CSR Dismissal of insubordinate worker not a progressive step Worker with clean record disobeyed management directive and lied about it but employer didn't follow its stated policy of progressive discipline BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A NEW BRUNSWICK employer must pay a former worker 10 months' wages for failing to fol- low progressive discipline when it fired him for not following a direction to avoid driving ve- hicles at work while the worker's licence was suspended. Steeve Roy, 45, was an opera- tions technician at the Bathurst, N.B., airport run by Northern New Brunswick Airport. The airport was regional and provid- ed airplane service to the north- eastern area of New Brunswick and was subject to the various standards, regulations, proce- dures, and laws under Transport Canada and related legislation. Its main customer was Air Can- ada, while it also served charter flights, air ambulances, and as a training facility for air cadets and reservists. Roy's job involved provid- ing meteorological information and status reports on runway conditions to pilots, inspecting aircraft after landing and before takeoff, refuelling aircraft, and managing activity on the tar- mac during the loading and un- loading of aircraft. Operations technicians were the first line for emergency response at the air- port at the start of the day, with the operations technician often the only employee onsite. Roy was hired in December 2007 as a ramp tech and after several months was promoted to the position of operations technician. Because the job in- volved inspecting the runways and airport grounds using the airport's main service truck, the job description noted that "a val- id driver's licence" and "a clean driver's abstract" were necessary conditions of the job. His annual performance reviews were gen- erally positive and Roy had a few verbal reprimands but no formal discipline on his record. On the evening of May 19, 2017, Roy was out socializing and drank more beer than he had planned to. He realized he was probably too impaired to drive home, so he decided to try to sleep it off in his car. A police officer found him asleep behind the steering wheel with the keys in the ignition and administered a sobriety test. Roy failed the test and the officer gave him a notice that his driver's licence was be- ing suspended for seven days. The next morning, Roy texted his supervisor at 5:25 a.m. to report his licence suspension, explaining how it happened and saying that he was in a pre- dicament for the next few days. He asked a co-worker who was working as a ramp agent that morning to drive the service truck on the runway inspection, so he was able to complete the inspection and the required in- spection form. Directive not followed When the supervisor arrived at work, he told Roy not to drive any vehicles at the airport, in- cluding the "baggage tug" — a small tractor used to haul trailers of passenger luggage — during his licence suspension. The su- pervisor also assigned Roy alter- nate duties, such as work on the ramp where another employee operated the baggage tug. The supervisor shadowed Roy over the course of the day to make sure he didn't drive any motor- ized vehicles. On May 23, Roy signed a progressive discipline form ac- knowledging that he wasn't per- mitted to operate any motorized vehicle on airport property and further disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal, could follow after the matter was "dis- cussed at the executive level." The next day, the airport's ex- ecutive director observed an Air Canada plane on the tarmac be- ing loaded with luggage and was surprised to see Roy driving the baggage tug. The day after that, May 25, the executive director asked Roy's supervisor to check security video of the tarmac, which confirmed that Roy had been driving the baggage tug. They decided that this was a se- rious breach of a "clear working condition" and was a safety risk around the aircraft of a major customer, Air Canada — which was especially concerning since most of his job he was working on his own and unsupervised. It also came out later that the em- ployee who Roy claimed drove the service truck during the May 20 runway inspection claimed he didn't. They decided Roy should be dismissed. They summoned Roy to the executive director's office and confronted him with the video surveillance. Roy didn't deny he drove the baggage tug and didn't offer an explanation — he said he didn't recall doing it because when he worked he was on "auto pilot" and the directive not to drive hadn't entered his mind as he set about his usual work. They didn't accept this explana- tion and Roy was dismissed for "failure to comply with condi- tions imposed on you due to the suspension of your driver's licence." Roy didn't accept the dismissal and filed a complaint of unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code with Human Re- Worker > pg. 8 Credit: Shutterstock/Tyler Olson

• Cover