An arbitrator has upheld the termination of a 26-year waste management employee who repeatedly refused to watch inward-facing camera footage of himself during safety coaching sessions, ruling the company had just cause for dismissal despite the worker’s lengthy service record.
P.M., a front-end driver with Waste Management of Canada Corporation since 1997, was fired after refusing multiple times to view footage captured by the company’s drivecam system — an AI-powered safety program that records 12-second clips when driving violations occur.
The case highlights the tension between employee privacy concerns and workplace safety requirements, particularly as video surveillance technology becomes more common in transportation industries.
The drivecam system
Waste Management installed the drivecam system in all trucks as part of its driver safety program. The system uses artificial intelligence to detect events like sudden braking, rolling through stop signs, hands off the steering wheel, or cell phone use. When triggered, it records eight seconds before and four seconds after the incident using both outward-facing and inward-facing cameras.
The footage is reviewed by a third-party company, which sends clips showing rule violations to management for coaching sessions with drivers. The arbitrator noted these sessions are considered coaching, not disciplinary, and are designed to help drivers identify and correct unsafe habits.
L.A., the district manager at the Hamilton location, testified that both cameras are reviewed “to show the driver what they were doing incorrectly and help address corrections for the future.” She estimated three to five clips are reviewed each week at the Hamilton yard.
The union, Unifor, did not challenge the drivecam system itself, and it had been in place for at least six years.
The incidents unfold
The dispute began Jan. 25, 2024, when M.C., a supervisor, attempted to show P.M. footage of his vehicle failing to stop at a stop sign. P.M. refused to watch the inward-facing footage, calling it “voyeurism,” according to M.C.’s testimony.
Under cross-examination, M.C. acknowledged that P.M. had previously not been required to watch the inward-facing camera under a former district manager, but explained “these expectations changed on January 25 when the grievor was told that he would be required to watch the inward facing camera.”
When M.C. met with P.M. again the next day with a union representative present, P.M. again refused to watch the footage without explanation. The company issued him two disciplinary points for insubordination under its Global Points Policy.
During the discipline meeting Jan. 30, P.M. became upset and “called Mr. Clennon a liar, swore multiple times at Mr. Clennon and raised his voice.” According to M.C.’s testimony, P.M. said: “If you want me to talk softer, I need to get the fuck out of the room.” P.M. then abruptly left before the meeting concluded.
Escalating consequences
The company issued P.M. four additional points Feb. 1 for violating the code of conduct. R.H., the area collections manager, attended this meeting to emphasize expectations, telling P.M. that “if he continued to refuse to watch the inward camera that he would be issued additional disciplinary points and that his employment would be terminated.”
Despite the warning, P.M. continued refusing to watch inward-facing footage during subsequent coaching sessions Feb. 5 and Feb. 7. L.A. testified she was concerned because P.M.’s driving had “triggered 6 video clips in the past 30 days,” indicating “repeated behaviour of driving rule violations.”
When P.M. refused again Feb. 7, the company decided to terminate his employment. During the termination meeting, P.M. pointed at L.A. and said: “I will be back, and you better not be here.”
The company offered a “last chance agreement” that would substitute 12 discipline points for termination if P.M. withdrew his grievance and agreed to comply. He refused.
Employee’s explanation
P.M. testified he had “severe anxiety and had trouble coping” and felt being asked to watch himself on camera was “vindictive.” He believed the change in practice was related to a complaint he had filed with the company’s ethics hotline.
In an email to human resources Feb. 1, P.M. wrote he could not watch the inward-facing camera because it was “embarrassing and it is a method of shaming that undermines the dignity of the individual.” He also stated: “I have made it very clear to management that these interior cab viewings show just how little privacy an individual has, and this act of surveillance can be harnessed to harm an individuals (sic) well being and health when in the wrong hands.”
P.M. testified he offered a compromise where he could “watch the inward facing camera alone and then management could come into the room to coach him.” However, he never sought formal medical accommodation despite understanding the company’s accommodation process and having previously received accommodation to avoid overtime work.
Arbitrator’s analysis
The arbitrator found P.M.’s refusal constituted insubordination, noting: “It is generally accepted by arbitrators that it is insubordinate and cause for discipline to refuse to comply with a reasonable direction of management unless the employee has a good explanation.”
The arbitrator determined the drivecam system and expectation to watch inward-facing footage was reasonable, stating: “I accept that the driving safety rules are an integral part of the company’s safety program. Those rules must be monitored and enforced to avoid and reduce driving related incidents.”
Importantly, the arbitrator found the company did not rush to judgment, noting management invited union representatives to coaching sessions, imposed progressive discipline with warnings, had senior management intervene, and offered a last chance agreement.
The arbitrator was particularly concerned that P.M. maintained his refusal throughout the arbitration hearing, providing “no assurance that his behaviour would change if he were reinstated.”
Mitigating factors insufficient
While acknowledging P.M.’s 26-year service record as a mitigating factor, the arbitrator found his attitude toward safety troubling. The arbitrator noted P.M. showed “no remorse for his outbursts in the meeting and refused to acknowledge that he was inappropriate when he yelled, swore, called the manager a liar, stormed out of the meeting and slammed the door.”
The arbitrator also criticized P.M.’s lack of appreciation for basic safety rules, noting when told about not coming to a complete stop, P.M. responded: “In a parking lot, yes. It was a completely empty parking lot.”
The arbitrator concluded: “While there are mitigating factors such as his lengthy service record, the grievor’s refusal to recognize his actions gives me no assurance that he would alter his behaviour.”
The union’s challenge to the company’s Global Points disciplinary system was rejected because the union had previously settled a policy grievance about the system.
For more information, see Waste Management of Canada Corporation v Unifor, Local 4268, 2025 CanLII 53358 (ON LA).
