Should Unions Grieve Every Firing?

Most unions have a standing policy that they will spend money and time grieving a union member’s termination regardless of whether it is a lost cause.

It may be that this policy springs from ideological principles. It may also spring from a strategic stance warning the employer that it must have its Ps and Qs in order for any termination to happen.

Regardless of the reasons, the policy can consume an awful lot of time and money for both the employer and the union, since they are paying for legal counsel and staff to attend arbitration.

Cameron had worked as a bus driver for a municipality for 15 years. In the two years before his termination he had no official disciplinary record, but there had been “coaching” incidents.

Once he shouted at a group of teenage girls who were playing their radio too loudly and someone complained that the experience was scary for everyone on the bus, including their 10-year-old son.

On another occasion, when his bus was cut off by a vehicle, Cameron drove up next to the car and shouted at the driver that they were a moron, among other things. On a different day, when the bus was full, Cameron started shouting at people to move and a passenger had to ask him to calm down.

Eventually, Cameron really blew it. Just before his termination, a passenger got on the bus and said they did not have the required fare.

Apparently this passenger knew that the municipality had told bus drivers they could not do anything to enforce payment. Cameron told the passenger to get off the bus and wait for the next one as he already had a bunch of people who had paid. The passenger didn’t budge.

Cameron said he was not moving the bus until the passenger got off, adding he could wait there all day. As he got off, the passenger said “this is why people like me stab people like you.”

Cameron thanked him, then closed the bus door on the passenger’s leg and bag. The passenger threw a plastic water bottle at Cameron, which bounced off the Plexiglas barrier and hit a visually impaired rider sitting nearby.

Cameron followed the passenger out of the bus, caught him by the rear doors, threw him to the ground and kicked him between one and three times while yelling at him.

Next, Cameron got back in the bus and called dispatch while the passenger stood outside the front door, yelling at him. Cameron decided the passenger hadn’t enjoyed enough physical contact and got off the bus again to shake him by the shoulders. When Cameron reported the incident to management, he really didn’t say anything about the fact that he had thrown the fellow to the ground, kicked him or that he had made contact twice. In Cameron’s view, he was the victim.

When the boss finally got the video footage a few weeks later Cameron was terminated. He grieved the firing.

The union and the employer agreed to send Cameron for an independent medical evaluation. A psychologist confirmed Cameron was not suffering from any mental illness that would have affected his behaviour, but thought that this kind of incident would not happen again. That opinion, however, was within the context of Cameron not providing all the details of the event to the psychologist or relaying all of his history.

At the arbitration, Cameron was very contrite for all that he had done, including misleading his boss as to what actually happened during the incident.

He was a long-serving employee with no significant disciplinary history and the union argued that Cameron could be rehabilitated. The arbitrator did not agree, however, and Cameron’s grievance was dismissed.

No amount of provocation from the passenger warranted Cameron’s violent attack in front of a busload of people, including children.

The employer was not obliged in any way to take the chance that Cameron would lose control again. This arbitration probably took at least three days for arguments and to hear evidence. Lawyers were paid. The psychologist cost money. The arbitrator doesn’t work for free. Regardless of any policy motivations, one wonders why the union spent its money this way.

Jointly with the employer, the union issued a statement to all bus drivers that said, “The company is very serious that employees must not engage in physical altercations with members of the public. The importance of avoiding conflict cannot be overstated. Any employee who leaves the driver’s seat to confront a member of the public can expect a suspension. If that confrontation results in an assault against the member of the public, termination will be the likely result.”

But still, it chose to waste everyone’s time.

This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.