The following case study involves the termination of Phil MacKay, a long-serving driver at Waste Management of Canada Corporation. In the case, the employee, Phil, repeatedly refused to comply with the company’s driver safety program—specifically, he refused to review inward-facing drivecam footage during coaching sessions. The union, Unifor Local 4268, grieved the discipline and termination, arguing that the company acted unreasonably.
Key Issues
- Insubordination – Did the grievor’s refusal to watch inward-facing drivecam footage constitute just cause for termination?
- Progressive Discipline – Was the company’s Global Points System properly applied?
- Mitigating Factors – Should the grievor’s 26 years of service and alleged anxiety have led to a lesser penalty?
Background & Facts
The Drivecam Safety Program
- Waste Management operates in a high-risk industry, requiring strict safety measures.
- The drivecam system records 12-second clips (8 sec before + 4 sec after an incident) when triggered by AI-detected events (e.g., sudden braking, stop sign violations, cell phone use).
- Two cameras:
- Outward-facing (road view)
- Inward-facing (driver view)
- The footage is used for non-disciplinary coaching to correct unsafe driving habits.
The Grievor’s Refusal
- January 25, 2024: The grievor refused to watch inward-facing footage, calling it “voyeurism.”
- January 26, 2024: He again refused, leading to 2 disciplinary points for insubordination.
- January 30, 2024: He yelled, swore at management, called his supervisor a “liar,” and stormed out of a meeting, resulting in 4 more points.
- February 1, 2024: Senior management warned him that continued refusal could lead to termination.
- February 5 & 7, 2024: He repeatedly refused to watch footage, accumulating additional points (totaling 12).
- Termination Offer: The company offered a last-chance agreement, which he rejected.
Grievor’s Defense
- Claimed anxiety but provided no medical documentation.
- Alleged the policy change was retaliation for an unrelated ethics complaint.
- Suggested a compromise (watching footage alone before coaching), which the company rejected.
Arbitrator’s Analysis & Decision
1. Was the Drivecam Policy Reasonable?
- Yes. The system was a well-established safety tool (in place for 6+ years) and was not challenged by the union.
- Watching both camera angles was necessary for effective coaching (e.g., determining if a driver was distracted during a stop sign violation).
2. Was the Grievor’s Refusal Insubordinate?
- Yes. He was given multiple warnings and opportunities to comply but persisted in his refusal.
- His outbursts (swearing, yelling, slamming doors) aggravated the misconduct.
- His lack of remorse during arbitration reinforced the conclusion that the employment relationship was irreparable.
3. Was the Global Points System Valid?
- The union had previously settled a grievance challenging the system, making it binding.
- Even without the points system, the grievor’s persistent defiance justified termination.
4. Were There Mitigating Factors?
- 26 years of service was acknowledged but was outweighed by his refusal to change his behaviour.
- No medical evidence supported his anxiety claim.
- His proposed “compromise” (watching footage alone) was not a genuine solution, as it undermined the coaching process.
Conclusion: Termination Upheld
The arbitrator dismissed all grievances, ruling that:
- The company’s safety directive was reasonable.
- The grievor’s insubordination was willful and repeated.
- His conduct during meetings was unacceptable.
- There was no reasonable expectation of rehabilitation.
Lessons for Employers
- Establish Clear and Justifiable Safety Policies: Ensure your safety policies, especially those incorporating new technologies like monitoring systems, are well-documented, clearly communicated, and demonstrably linked to legitimate safety objectives.
- Document Everything: Maintain thorough records of all incidents, coaching sessions, disciplinary actions, and communications with employees, including any attempts at accommodation.
- Train Managers on Policy Enforcement and Communication: Equip your managers with the skills to effectively communicate expectations, conduct coaching sessions, and address insubordination and disruptive behaviour in a consistent and professional manner.
- Follow Progressive Discipline: Implement and adhere to a clear progressive discipline policy, providing employees with opportunities to correct their behaviour before resorting to termination.
- Address Accommodation Requests Formally: Ensure employees are aware of and follow the proper procedures for requesting accommodation. Do not informally accommodate without proper documentation and medical support where required.
- Focus on Behaviour, Not Just Outcomes: While driving infractions were the initial trigger, the ultimate reason for termination was MacKay’s refusal to participate in the safety program and his insubordinate behaviour. This demonstrates the importance of addressing underlying behavioural issues.
The Waste Management of Canada Corporation v Unifor, Local 4268 case serves as a strong affirmation for employers regarding their right to implement and enforce reasonable safety policies, even when they involve technology-based monitoring. It underscores the importance of clear communication, consistent application of policies, and a robust progressive discipline process.
Crucially, it highlights that an employee’s unwavering refusal to comply with reasonable directives and a lack of remorse for their actions can lead to the upholding of their termination, even for long-serving employees.
Citation: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2025/2025canlii53358/2025canlii53358.html
