But what about driving infractions? Can offences behind the wheel have employment ramifications? What about an employee who suffers from alcoholism? Can they rely on their disability to excuse charges under the Highway Traffic Act or the Criminal Code? As seems to generally be the case in matters like this, the answer to these questions is “it depends”.
As the Court said in Pearce v. Foster et al. (a “master-servant” case from the late 19th Century):
If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duty in the service, it is misconduct which justifies immediate dismissal. That misconduct, according to my view, need not be misconduct in the carrying on of the service of the business. It is sufficient if it is conduct which is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests or to the reputation of the master, and the master will be justified, not only if he discovers it at the time, but also if he discovers it afterwards, in dismissing that servant.
Of course, the determination of whether particular actions amount to cause for dismissal is a much less black-and-white affair than it was 130 years ago. However, the principle is still observed: an employee’s behaviour outside of work may have repercussions for the employment relationship (up to and including dismissal) where the behaviour is prejudicial to the employer’s interests.
Typically, whether or not off-duty driving offences or license suspensions (or other off-duty conduct) can be treated as ‘misconduct’ will turn on the nature and scope of the employee’s duties, the amount of notoriety their actions have attracted, the seriousness of the charges, the duration of the license restrictions or suspension, and the availability of other work or roles that don’t require driving.
Before considering how to respond, an employer must make the necessary enquiries to determine what has occurred and how significant an event it is. Obviously, the employee should be interviewed and any other available information gathered. In some cases, this process may be hampered if the employee has received legal advice from a criminal lawyer and decides to exercise his or her ‘right to remain silent’. At very least, however, the employer should require the employee to provide a copy of the information or ticket that was issued, and/or any documentation that may have been provided by the Ministry of Transportation (for example, where the licensing issue results from administrative reasons or an accumulation of lesser driving offences) to establish what charges and/or driving conditions apply.
Perhaps most crucial to the employer’s decision-making will be the nature of the employee’s role and responsibilities. Is possession of a valid driver’s license a requirement of the position? Is driving the primary or an essential duty of the employee’s job? If not, how often is the employee expected to drive in the course of performing the job? Does the employee operate an employer vehicle or his/her own car? Does the employer maintain fleet insurance and what are its terms? The more central that driving is to the employee’s duties, the more stringent the employer can be in its scrutiny of the circumstances of the loss of license. However, it is also essential for the employer to understand the duration of the license suspension or conditions. The shorter the suspension, the more carefully the employer should consider other options short of termination, such as an administrative suspension or reassignment to other duties (if they are available), to keep the individual employed until they regain the ability to drive.
The seriousness of the infraction and the employee’s explanation and display of remorse (if any) are also important factors to consider. If the employee’s license was suspended administratively or for reasons unrelated to behaviour behind the wheel (for example, due to a failure to renew on time, failure to provide required medical information, or due to arrears in spousal or child support), the employer should consider options short of significant discipline or discharge. On the other hand, conduct that suggests poor judgment or risk-taking (e.g., drunk driving, over 80 mg, or so-called ‘stunt-driving’), may attract more significant sanctions (and , therefore, less empathy). Likewise, the attitude of the employee and any explanation they may provide must be weighed. An absence of contrition or insight into the seriousness of the situation are poor indicators of likely good behaviour when driving for work in the future. Of course, the employer must also consider the employee’s general history in terms of performance and behaviour – an employee with long, good service will obviously expect to receive more leniency than a short-term employee or one with a chequered past.
In some cases, the nature of the employer’s business and/or the notoriety of the employee’s behaviour may also be an aggravating factor. Where charges against the individual have been reported in the media, the employer’s reputation may be at stake, particularly in a smaller community. In some cases, the extreme safety sensitivity of the work may dictate that the employee be pulled off the road immediately (e.g., a truck driver who works for a company that hauls fuel oil or other dangerous goods on public roadways). If there’s a risk that the employee’s behaviour may impact public confidence in the services provided by the employer (such as would be the case in policing), this will also be relevant to how seriously the misconduct is treated.
In any event, it cannot be assumed that the loss or suspension of an employee’s driver’s license will necessarily result in termination, even where driving is a significant component of their job. As Arbitrator Owen Shime observed in one of the seminal arbitration cases on the subject (Re Bell Canada and C.W.C. (Shime), 24 L.A.C. (4th) 116):
An employee who loses his or her driving licence for violation of the Highway Traffic Act, [citation omitted], or a similar statute need not suffer a loss of employment, even where the employee is required to have a driving licence in order to perform his or her duties. An employer is required to act reasonably and must balance its interests in maintaining production with the grievor’s interest in retaining his or her employment. Also some care should be taken to ensure that the employee is not penalized twice for off-duty conduct but rather that there is a legitimate and significant employer interest that is being protected. And finally, in the loss of licence cases there is a presumption that an employee should be suspended until other work is available or the employee’s driving privileges are restored.
Alternatively, a number of adjudicators have also held that an employer should consider the possibility of offering other, non-driving duties to an employee pending reinstatement of their driver’s license. However, this option should only be considered in cases where the period of suspension or driving conditions is known and relatively short. And of course, this alternative should never be considered where it would result in displacing another employee. Only available work should be offered to accommodate the employee who has lost his/her driving privileges.
But what about the employee whose license is suspended due to charges related to impairment by alcohol or drugs, but who suffers from a known addiction? What weight should the employer give the employee’s disability? Is it an excuse or a mitigating factor?
In English v. Treasury Board (Solicitor GeneralCanada - Correctional Service), 2003 PSSRB 72, Board Member Guindon was dealing with the case of a correctional officer who was terminated for failing to disclose off-duty conduct (i.e., criminal charges related to drunk driving) that compromised his ability to perform his duties. The officer had not told the employer that he had been convicted or that his license had been suspended for two (2) years. In addition, he continued to operate employer vehicles (performing inmate transfers) after he lost his license. Prior to the arbitration hearing, the employee expressed remorse and took steps to address his acknowledged problems with alcohol abuse. The Board Member observed that the employee’s alcoholism had to be considered in assessing the appropriate penalty for his wrongful behaviour. Citing an earlier decision, the Board Member wrote:In short, where it is established that an employee’s misconduct (in this case, off-duty driving offences) are related to a proven medical condition (i.e., alcoholism), the focus of the analysis will be on whether the employee acknowledges and seeks treatment for his/her problem, as well as the likelihood for recovery. Evidence that the employee has sought treatment even after termination may be relevant. However, the employer can in these cases impose conditions on the employee to ensure that the employee completes any rehabilitation program and complies with prescribed after-care (including abstinence from alcohol).
What emerges from these cases and the other material cited to the board is a recurring set of considerations and principles arbitrators take into account when dealing with discipline as it is applied to the alcohol and/or drug-addicted employee. These principles and considerations include the following:
1. Alcoholism is recognized as an illness albeit one with an element of volition, that can attract varying levels of justifiable disciplinary response from the employer up to and including discharge;
2. An adjudication board is entitled to look at the rehabilitative progress made by an employee subsequent to the employer's decision to discipline and is likely to modify that discipline if the employee can demonstrate that he has been successful in his recovery;
3. The discipline imposed by an employer should only be modified in "exceptional circumstances" and those circumstances exist where an employee has shown genuine prospects for recovery and the restoration of a productive employer-employee relationship;
4. The employer is entitled to insist that the employee perform the work for which he is paid and is not obliged to bear all the costs and consequences associated with an employee's inability to perform his duties as a result of his alcoholism;
5. An adjudication board should consider the extent to which and the duration for which an employee is unable to perform his employment obligations;
6. That where reinstatement occurs in substitution for discharge arbitrators are prepared to attach conditions to such reinstatement. Recognizing that alcoholism and drug addiction are not curable and can only be arrested by total abstinence, one such condition often attached to reinstatement is the requirement that the employee remain drug and alcohol-free.
Where dismissal is not the appropriate course of action, an employer can consider withholding assignments that involve driving, transferring the employee to another position or other duties that don’t require a license, suspending the employee (where no other suitable work is available) or demoting the employee to a role where driving is not required.
While driving offences can have a significant impact in the workplace – hindering efficient operations or drawing unwanted scrutiny on an organization – employers need to be aware that not every loss of a driver’s license should attract the same penalty. A careful, fact-specific assessment is required in each and every case.
Do you have questions how to deal with an employee who has lost their driving privileges? Need guidance on whether or not to discipline for off-duty conduct? Contact Lance Ceaser for expert advice.