An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) Railway employee for refusing to submit to a post-incident drug and alcohol test following a motor vehicle accident.
The ruling confirmed that the company was within its rights to terminate the 20-year employee for his failure to comply with CPKC’s strict drug and alcohol policies.
The case revolved around R.A.’s actions on November 2, 2023, when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while working at Vaughan Yard. Following the incident, he left the company’s property without permission and failed to participate in mandatory post-incident testing, a violation of CPKC’s alcohol and drug policy. The company terminated R.A. on Nov. 15, 2023, citing a breach of trust and safety standards, essential to maintaining his employment.
The arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that termination was excessive and could have been mitigated by R.A.’s long service and lack of a significant disciplinary record in recent years.
Union argued for lesser discipline
The United Steelworkers Local 1976, representing R.A., argued that there was no evidence that he was impaired during his shift. They further noted that no signs of impairment were witnessed by his colleagues. The union also emphasized R.A.’s efforts to rectify the situation by contacting his supervisor after leaving the property, in an attempt to take the post-incident test, but he was informed that the testing window had already expired.
The union proposed reinstating R.A. with a six-month suspension and random drug testing for two years as an alternative to dismissal, highlighting his nearly 24 years of service with the company and his willingness to comply with future testing requirements.
Company maintained dismissal was justified
CPKC maintained that R.A.’s refusal to submit to testing, even after being explicitly warned of the consequences, constituted a serious violation of company policy. “Post-Incident testing has strict timelines for which it must be completed,” the company argued, emphasizing that R.A.’s departure from the property without authorization undermined their ability to ensure workplace safety.
The company’s stance was that the refusal to test warranted a negative inference regarding his potential impairment at the time of the incident.
The company also cited its hybrid discipline guidelines, which allow for dismissal in cases where trust in the employee is irreparably broken. “The Grievor’s actions led to the bond of trust, essential to the employment relationship, being broken,” CPKC stated.
Arbitrator supports company’s position
In the ruling, Arbitrator James Cameron sided with CPKC, finding that R.A. had violated the company’s alcohol and drug policy by failing to participate in the post-incident test. The arbitrator noted that his refusal to test, even after being given an opportunity to comply, allowed the company to draw a negative inference about potential impairment.
“The refusal of an employee to undergo a drug test in appropriate circumstances may leave that employee vulnerable to adverse inferences,” the arbitrator wrote, citing prior rulings from similar cases. The decision referenced a line of jurisprudence affirming the company’s right to dismiss employees for failing to submit to reasonable drug and alcohol testing requests, particularly in safety-sensitive environments like railway operations.
Cameron also addressed the union’s argument that termination was excessive, acknowledging his long service and otherwise clean record. However, the arbitrator concluded that R.A.’s actions were serious enough to justify dismissal, especially given his refusal to test even after being reminded of the potential consequences. “The Company is entitled to take a very negative inference from this wrongful refusal and to infer that the grievor was impaired at work,” Cameron wrote.
Refusal to test deemed significant
The ruling emphasized that R.A.’s decision not to submit to testing, despite being warned about the implications of refusal, played a central role in upholding the dismissal. Cameron pointed to previous cases, including CROA 5030, in which a similar refusal to submit to a post-incident drug test led to the employee’s dismissal being upheld. In both cases, arbitrators drew a negative inference from the refusal, which led to a conclusion of impairment.
While the union presented alternative cases where terminations were replaced with suspensions, the arbitrator found that those cases were not directly applicable to this situation. In most of the union’s cited precedents, the testing was found to be improperly administered or not warranted under company policies. In R.A.’s case, however, the company’s policy was clear, and the request for testing was deemed reasonable given the circumstances of the accident.
Grievance dismissed
In conclusion, the arbitrator ruled that the company’s decision to terminate R.A. was justified, given the severity of the policy violation and the safety-sensitive nature of the railway industry. “Despite the grievor’s mitigating factors, I am unable to conclude that the Company decision to terminate was unreasonable in the circumstances,” Cameron stated.
The grievance was dismissed, and R.A. will not be reinstated to his position.
For more information, see Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway v United Steelworkers Local-1976, 2024 CanLII 87117 (CA LA).
