Groupe Robert forced to reinstate truck driver fired for drinking and driving
A Quebec trucking company has been ordered to reinstate a driver who was fired after she drank at least nine beers before she lost control of her truck on a Pennsylvania highway.
The driver’s actions amounted to serious misconduct, but her drinking was the result of a disability — alcoholism — and trucking company Groupe Robert should have made a reasonable accommodation for her, labour arbitrator Huguette April said in her written July 18 decision.
“The night of the accident, she needed to drink,” April said. “She admitted that even though she knew she shouldn’t, the need was stronger, like something that she couldn’t control.”
Groupe Robert fired the driver after she was involved in a single-vehicle crash shortly before midnight on June 30, 2022.
The facts of the case say the driver stopped twice to buy six packs of beer as she drove from a Montreal suburb to Pennsylvania. The woman admitted she drank at least nine beers during the trip, but she said she didn’t remember whether she drank the final three on the road. After the crash, which damaged the truck but caused no injuries, she was arrested with a blood-alcohol level that was 0.18 — more than twice the legal limit.
Reported drinking problem
The driver told her employer about her drinking problem about a week after the crash, one day after she sought medical help to stop drinking. She was officially fired Aug. 31, after she had completed an in-patient addiction treatment program.
April said there is no evidence Groupe Robert asked or verified whether their troubled employee suffered from alcoholism.
The driver told the arbitrator the company could have installed an alcohol testing device in her truck after the crash, or found other work for her.
Groupe Robert, meanwhile, told April that the collective agreement between the company and the union representing drivers is clear: The penalty for drinking and driving is immediate termination of employment.
Groupe Robert to appeal
The company said it will appeal the decision.
“At Groupe Robert, the safety of all road users is our absolute priority,” company spokesman Kim Leclerc wrote in an email on Monday. Leclerc said the decision to fire the driver “was not taken lightly.”
“We have a responsibility to the community to ensure that our employees meet the highest safety standards.”
Marc-André Gauthier, a spokesman for Teamsters Canada, the union that represents the driver and that challenged her dismissal, said it has an obligation to defend its members in work-related matters, regardless of the circumstances.
Road safety is a priority for the union, Gauthier said in an email Monday.
“We encourage drivers to respect driving laws and transport companies to put the necessary policies and tools to allow their employees to practise their profession in complete safety,” he wrote, adding that the union cannot comment further because the company is appealing the arbitrator’s decision.
Have your say
This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.
This can’t be real! Drinking alcohol while driving is grounds for termination period
As for the unions point of view, they take the dues, they must represent regardless of the circumstances. To do less is a violation. They’re the same as the defence attorney, they must provide the best defence possible and do not necessarily have to agree with the position.
As for the arbitrator’s decision. Yes alcoholism is a problem but does it need accommodation? There’s a difference between illnesses that are self induced and those which happen naturally. It’s pushing the boundaries of civility to have alcoholism declared worthy of accommodation.
That is ridiculous, the employee obviously knew she had an addiction prior to the crash. She should have revealed the problem and asked for medical help when she knew of the problem, not after an accident. That way the company could have offered her treatment before she put her life and the lives of others in jeopardy.
Would the union have appealed the decision had she killed someone?
That’s crazy! IF she had told the company before she was hired, she wouldn’t have been hired. She should have told them after her probation period, then asked for a lock out device on her truck. Are they going to put one in when they lose the appeal?
And next time, when she kills a bus load of children on their way to school, will the Teamsters still make sure she gets her job back? What a dangerous precedent to set. Companies will be afraid to fire drivers who “need” to drink more than they need to do their job properly. If she “needed” to drink, maybe she shouldn’t have taken the load. She should never have gotten on the road and endangered my children and yours. I hope that she has learned her lesson, but since there were no consequences, probably not.
Here’s an interesting twist … If you get picked up for impaired, can you use the alcoholism disability defence in court to be absolved of the charges?
It`s ridiculous for the union to defend what`s unreasonable. Do they not have morals or standards? They simply hurt their cause, decrease their credibility, and create an even more anti-union environment. That`s not what unions are for. Stop defending the undefendable! Courage to the good folks at Groupe Robert for having to deal with this bs.
I can’t believe that anyone would want a person who has a problem drinking while in control of a transport vehicle be reinstated after being charged with and admitted to drinking alcohol while operating said vehicle involved in a collision to Roberts equipment just goes to show how the lunatics are running the asylum. All we’re hearing from the MTO and Police Departments is about the safe handling of large TRUCKS and now this?
Typically Canadian nobody is responsible for their own stupidity Drinking on job has been a firing offense xsince l started in 1961
Absolute lunacy., and for the Teamsters Union to claim that road safety is a priority for the union is a joke.
This is a copy of the email I just sent to Teamsters Canada:
I have just finished reading an article I can barely believe. The Teamsters have actually expended resources to reinstate a driver with a demonstrated willingness to put the lives of others at risk. By implication, the Teamsters, then, have demonstrated a willingness to put the lives of others at risk. If the driver had notified Groupe Robert of their alcoholism, prior to choosing to both sate their need to drink and, simultaneously, operate a heavy truck, I would wholeheartedly support the decision to keep the driver on and seek medical assistance. The fact is, Groupe Robert had no knowledge of their employee’s alcoholism prior to their driver choosing to drive while intoxicating themselves.
Marc-André Gauthier said: “We encourage drivers to respect driving laws and transport companies to put the necessary policies and tools to allow their employees to practise their profession in complete safety.” Respecting driving laws, for drivers, should not just be encouraged, it must be demanded. If the driver needed to drink, she should have stopped the vehicle. If the company then fired her for failing to do her job, and the Teamsters came to her defense, I would be fully behind your efforts. That’s not what happened, though. Drinking may be compelled by alcoholism. Indulging that compulsion while driving a truck is unconscionable. The defense of that action is, also, unconscionable.
It is hard enough in this day and age to make a living! You mean to tell me that companies need to babysit their employees? Seriously! Are we not dealing with adults here? A truck driver who Drinks on the job should be fired and that’s it! The union was wrong here! I believe the company was right here!
Union shop. That says it all.
I can’t believe the union would stand up for anyone that drinks and drives, just think if it was your family member that could’ve been killed.
+This is maybe the reason today in different states they ask to see your driver’s license and scanned it even just to buy one can of beer
I hope the Robert drivers get rid of the union over this. I am sure drivers will not support the defence of the need to drink and drive. The fact that Robert lost this case is totally ridiculous and speaks to how employee rights can override safety.
In this instance, justice truly is blind, I have to question the judgement of the arbitrator. Driving under the influence in no way, shape, or form should be rewarded. I am gob-smacked, that regardless of the collective agreement stating that driving under the influence results in immediate termination, the arbitrator rewarded the driver their employment.
Groupe Robert should not have to deal with this liability, it is not their responsibility to have to employee this “driver.” According to the report above the “driver’s” drinking problem wasn’t even reported to Groupe Robert until a week after the accident.
I am sure that had Groupe Robert known of the drinking problem, there would not have been an issue, because the “driver” would be viewed as a liability to the company and the public.
I have a few questions for the arbitrator in this case.
1. What were you thinking?
2. Who do you expect to pay for the insurance increases the company could face keeping this “driver” employed?
3. If and when this “driver” kills someone, will you be delivering the news to the victim’s family(ies), and take responsibility for putting that “driver” back behind the wheel?
What kind of nonsense is this that a drunk driver gets reinstated due to an addiction? All the disclosure by the driver was after the incident.
How could the company know in advance of a disability if it was never disclosed by the driver?
Companies are not telepathic and this decision by an arbitrator whom I am sure has not have a class AZ license is absolutely egregious.
Drunk drivers kill more innocent people and cause no amount of heartbreak to families.
This woman should have her permit to drive revoked and charged with a serious driving impaired violation.
Addiction be damned, what a useful crutch to avoid being charged by the law. I agree had the woman admitted she had an addiction to alcohol prior to her accident then a benevolent company such as Robert Transport could have arranged to get her help and not place her in a position to hurt or kill anyone, herself included. That would have been the responsible course of action for the woman. NOT AFTER THE OCCURRENCE.
Good on Robert that they will appeal. Have we lost all common sense?
And shame on the Teamsters for condoning drunk driving and drunk drivers.
-
This is a perfect example of what is wrong in the industry. The complete lack of accountability and responsibility. It’s always somebody else’s fault. I realize that the article is edited due to space. But nowhere was it mentioned that the driver had taken any responsibility for her actions. Quite the opposite actually, she blamed the company for not putting an unlock/ lockout system into her truck.
As for the Teamsters, I can’t blame them for the verdict. They represented a union member, plain and simple. I can’t imagine they wanted to but they were obligated to. I just wish they hadn’t done it so well. But that is my opinion.
When accountability and responsibility come back to this industry, on all levels. We may one day be able to recruit drivers, not steering wheel holders, from this country and all over this planet of ours.
One day someone will find the third thing missing in this industry, common sense.
How in good conscious can a union, by way of defending this behaviour, say they believe in safety?
Why do some unions have a bad name, this is why!
Really. I guess it’s OK to drive drunk when your a member of the Teamsters because they will have your back.