A British Columbia mining company was justified in firing a 10-month employee who failed to follow basic safety procedures, causing a 450-ton water truck to roll backwards out of control for up to 170 metres down a busy mine road, an arbitrator has ruled.
R.S., who worked for Elk Valley Resources Inc. at its Elkview coal mine, was terminated after the July 2024 incident. The United Steelworkers union grieved the dismissal, arguing the discipline was excessive given the circumstances.
Arbitrator Nicholas Glass dismissed the grievance, finding the employee deliberately chose not to place wheel chocks despite knowing the safety requirement, making the termination appropriate for such a serious safety breach.
The incident
On July 21, 2024, near the end of his night shift, R.S. was operating a water truck when he volunteered to help reactivate an autonomous haul truck that had stopped functioning. He parked his 450-ton water truck on what he acknowledged was a slight decline and exited the vehicle to board the other truck.
The water truck then rolled backwards out of control for 140 to 170 metres down a well-travelled access road used by haul trucks, graders, water trucks, dozers and pickup trucks. The runaway vehicle eventually hit a berm and stopped at the edge of a significant drop-off to a lower level of the mine.
Investigation revealed R.S. had failed to engage the parking brake and failed to place wheel chocks to secure the massive vehicle, despite being fully trained on both procedures.
Employee’s explanations evolved
During multiple post-incident interviews, R.S. gave varying explanations for his failures. Initially, he said he was certain he had applied the parking brake, but later acknowledged he clearly had not.
Regarding wheel chocks, his explanations changed significantly. In the first interview, when asked why he didn’t place them, he answered: “I wasn’t 100% sure I had to.” He explained he had seen others in the field omit placing wheel chocks and “I guess that’s where it comes from.”
In a later interview, he said it “might have been a lapse of judgement” and noted “it was very close to finishing time” with only a “1-2 degrees max” slope.
At the arbitration hearing, R.S. attempted to distance himself from these earlier statements, claiming he simply forgot due to inadequate training. However, the arbitrator found his original explanations more credible.
Arbitrator’s key findings
The arbitrator made a crucial distinction between the two safety failures. While finding the parking brake failure was likely inadvertent, he determined the wheel chock omission was deliberate.
“The grievor turned his mind specifically to the question of whether or not he would place the wheel chocks, and made the conscious choice not to do so, knowing that this was completely contrary to his training and basic safety protocols,” Glass wrote.
The arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that both failures were simple mistakes, noting R.S.’s repeated explanations that he didn’t think wheel chocks were “100% necessary” based on seeing others omit them.
Training was adequate
The union argued R.S. received deficient training, but the arbitrator found this claim unfounded. Evidence showed R.S. had completed extensive safety training, including specific instruction on parking and shutdown procedures.
During water truck training, R.S. scored 5/5 on parking and shutdown procedures on his final day, meaning his trainer was satisfied he “demonstrates the skills and the mindset to operate safely and responsibly.”
On a haul truck checkout, R.S. was specifically marked as having demonstrated skills including “sets park brake only” and “sets wheel chocks positioned correctly.”
The arbitrator noted that R.S. himself acknowledged knowing the procedures, testifying that he knew he had to follow park and shutdown procedures “on every vehicle.”
Safety culture and consequences
Elk Valley Resources emphasized its commitment to safety through extensive training programs. The company’s “Four Principles of Survival” included “ensure equipment is secure” as a fundamental rule.
Human Resources superintendent C.G. testified that safety was the number one priority at the mine, explaining that failure to apply park brakes and place wheel chocks “is risky behaviour that puts others at risk.” He said the company “could not have someone willing to take risks on this mine site.”
The arbitrator noted the serious potential consequences, observing that the incident “involved a water truck weighing 450 tons, rolling out of control 140-170 metres down a busy road” with potential for death, serious injury or property damage.
Union arguments rejected
The union raised several arguments that were unsuccessful:
Discriminatory discipline: The union provided examples of other employees who received lesser discipline for allegedly similar safety infractions. However, the arbitrator found distinguishing factors in each case, including differences in seniority, the nature of equipment involved, and whether the violations were inadvertent versus deliberate.
Procedural issues: The union criticized the investigation process and argued R.S. shouldn’t have been authorized to leave his water truck to help with the other vehicle. The arbitrator found these arguments without merit.
Mitigating factors: Despite acknowledging some mitigating factors like R.S.’s remorse and short service record, the arbitrator found they were insufficient to overcome the seriousness of deliberately disregarding a vital safety procedure.
Arbitral approach to safety violations
The arbitrator referenced extensive case law establishing that safety infractions are among the most serious workplace offences, particularly in hazardous industries like mining.
Glass noted that in safety-sensitive workplaces, “even a single safety infraction can justify dismissal” and that “deterrence becomes an even more important factor than it normally is.”
The decision emphasized that progressive discipline isn’t appropriate when safety infractions are so serious that they destroy the employer’s trust in an employee’s ability to work safely in the future.
The arbitrator concluded the employment relationship was “irretrievably broken” due to the employer’s lost trust in R.S.’s ability to work safely, making termination appropriate despite his relatively short service.
For more information, see Elk Valley Resources Inc. v United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local UNION NO. 9346, 2025 CanLII 56003 (BC LA).
