An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway conductor who failed to disclose a medical condition and the use of “magic mushrooms” to self-treat that condition, determining that such non-disclosure prevented the company from properly assessing his fitness for duty.
The case involved a grievance brought by Teamsters Canada Rail Conference against the railway company after the dismissal of a conductor identified as S.S.
Details of the dismissal
S.S. was hired on September 12, 2022. During his pre-employment medical screening in July 2022, he was asked if he had ever used illicit drugs, to which he answered “no.” However, in February 2023, medical records showed S.S. had reported using magic mushrooms “recreationally but not in any significant quantities.”
The company dismissed S.S. on February 1, 2024, following an investigation that determined he had violated the company’s Fitness to Work Medical Policy and Procedure and Alcohol and Drug Procedures.
During the investigation, it was discovered that S.S. had been using magic mushrooms to “self-treat” his medical condition, although he confirmed no physician had ever prescribed this drug for his condition. The grievor claimed he began using magic mushrooms after completing his pre-employment medical in July 2022, despite suffering from his medical condition since 2016.
Contradictory evidence undermined credibility
The arbitrator found significant inconsistencies in S.S.’s testimony that undermined his credibility.
When asked why a medical report dated February 1, 2023, indicated he used magic mushrooms recreationally when he claimed to have only started using them in the spring and summer of 2023, S.S. responded that he must have forgotten “one” of the times he might have consumed them.
The grievor stated he disclosed this use to medical professionals because he “saw no reason to lie,” but denied being deliberately untruthful to the company, claiming he was “certain” his use of magic mushrooms began after his pre-employment medical screening.
The arbitrator noted these explanations were contradictory: “Either he ‘forgot’ he had taken the drug earlier or he failed to disclose because he did not intend to use magic mushrooms long-term. A credibility assessment is required.”
After reviewing the evidence, the arbitrator agreed with the company’s argument that S.S.’s evidence “lacks credibility, is contradictory and is therefore not trustworthy.”
Safety-critical position in a safety-sensitive industry
The arbitrator emphasized the safety-critical nature of the conductor position in the railway industry, noting that conductors “control the movement of large industrial equipment, including lining switches to ensure that Trains and railroad cars go where they are supposed to go.”
The decision referenced prior arbitration rulings that recognized “Few enterprises in Canada can more credibly argue the safety sensitive nature of their operations than a national railway,” particularly given that railways are required to transport dangerous materials such as “propane, anhydrous ammonia, chlorine and crude oil.”
The arbitrator stated that “Arbitrators are united in the conclusion that the use of illicit drugs and the railroad do not mix. The impact of illicit drug use in this industry is far-reaching and potentially catastrophic.”
Non-disclosure deemed serious misconduct
While S.S. claimed he never consumed magic mushrooms while “subject to duty” and was always fit for work, the arbitrator stressed this was irrelevant to the case at hand.
“The Grievor in this case was investigated and ultimately disciplined for failure to disclose his medical condition and his past illicit drug use to the Company, and not for working under the influence of that drug,” the arbitrator wrote.
By failing to disclose information that would have allowed the company to assess his fitness for work, S.S. had committed “significant and serious misconduct when the Grievor worked in a safety-critical position, in an industry which is also highly safety-sensitive.”
Union arguments rejected
The union argued that S.S. had disclosed his medical condition on his pre-employment medical and that the dismissal was excessive, serving no educational component and bypassing progressive discipline.
The union also contended that S.S. was seeking accommodation for family issues and that the company was trying to “rid itself” of him after he requested weekends off to deal with custody and marital issues.
However, the arbitrator found no evidence to support this claim, stating “The Grievor would not be the first employee in this industry to desire weekends off to deal with his family issues. He was told no. There is no evidence it went any further than that conversation.”
Prior discipline record considered
The arbitrator noted that S.S. was a short-service employee with a discipline history that included a 40-day suspension for not requesting three-point protection before stepping between rails to complete realignment of drawbars—a serious operating rules offence.
The arbitrator concluded: “The Grievor’s record is aggravating and not mitigating.”
Preliminary issue of anonymization
Before addressing the merits of the case, the arbitrator considered a preliminary request from the union to anonymize the decision. After applying the three-part test from the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan et al., the arbitrator denied the request.
While acknowledging that references to specific medical conditions could be limited to protect the grievor’s privacy, the arbitrator rejected the notion that the grievor’s use of magic mushrooms warranted similar protection.
“I cannot agree that protection of an individual’s choice to use psychoactive drugs and/or alcohol would raise an important public interest of privacy which is worthy of protection,” the arbitrator wrote. “The same reasoning would be applicable to at least the recreational use of marijuana and also other drugs including—but not limited to—methamphetamines, heroine, and cocaine.”
The grievance was dismissed, with the arbitrator concluding that dismissal was “a just and reasonable disciplinary response, in all of the circumstances.”
For more information, see Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway v Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2025 CanLII 41034 (CA LA).
