Safety First: Refusal to Comply with Safety Program Warrants Dismissal
June 26, 2025
| By
Rebecca Rosenberg
Bottom Line
In a recent decision, Waste Management of Canada Corporation v Unifor, Local 4268, Arbitrator Wilson upheld the dismissal of a long service employee who refused to comply with the employer’s reasonable safety program. The employer in this case was successfully represented by Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP lawyers, Evan Campbell and Rebecca Rosenberg.
Background Facts
The employee was a Front-End driver who had worked for Waste Management of Canada Corporation (“Waste Management”) for approximately 28 years. As a driver, the employee was obligated to follow Waste Management’s comprehensive safety training program, which involved a driver camera (“drivecam”) system. Drivecam systems were installed in all waste trucks and had two cameras; one camera facing outward toward the street, and one camera facing inward, toward the driver.
The drivecam system was automatically activated when certain events occurred, such as sudden braking and rolling through a stop sign, at which time the drivecams would record a 12-second clip of the incident. If the clip showed a violation of Waste Management’s safety program, management would hold a non-disciplinary coaching session with the driver to review what they were doing incorrectly and provide feedback.
On January 25, 2024, management attempted to coach the employee on drivecam footage which showed his vehicle failing to stop at a stop sign. The employee refused to look at the inward facing camera footage, however, alleging that he was not required to under the supervision of a former manager and calling it “voyeurism”. The next day, management held another meeting with the employee to review the footage and reset the expectation that the employee had to view both angles of the drivecam footage under Waste Management’s safety program. The employee again refused and raised his voice, calling management liars and storming out of the room.
As a result of these refusals, the employee was issued disciplinary points under Waste Management’s Global Points Policy (the “Policy”). Under this Policy, employees accumulate points that could result in the termination of their employment. Rather than issue suspensions without pay, the Policy introduced a system of progressive discipline with points which accumulate based on the individual circumstances of each case and the severity of the misconduct at issue.
On February 1, 2024, management held yet another meeting with the employee to address his unprofessional behaviour at the coaching sessions. Management reiterated that further refusals to review the drivecam footage would result in disciplinary points under the Policy and, potentially, employment termination.
Nevertheless, on February 5, 2024, management scheduled a coaching session with the employee’s union representative present to review another drivecam clip. The employee refused and was issued further disciplinary points. Two days later, on February 7, 2024, the employee was provided with yet another opportunity to review the drivecam footage for another clip that was triggered. In line with his past refusals, the employee would not watch the footage.
Following this last refusal, the employee had accumulated enough points to justify a dismissal under the Policy. Rather than proceed to termination, Waste Management offered the employee a last chance agreement. The employee, however, refused the offer.
The Decision
Arbitrator Wilson dismissed the grievances challenging the disciplinary points issued and, ultimately, upheld the employment termination. Arbitrator Wilson accepted that the safety program, including the drivecam footage, were integral parts of Waste Management’s safety program and that the employee’s refusal to participate in the coaching sessions constituted insubordination.
While Arbitrator Wilson was mindful of the employee’s long service record, the employee’s outright refusal to comply with the safety program and consistent denial that he had done anything wrong weighed against reinstatement. Importantly, at no time did the employee express “a scintilla of remorse” either in his coaching sessions with management or during his testimony at the hearing.
Significantly, Arbitrator Wilson did not accept the Union’s challenge of the Policy. Rather, he found that the Policy, and the imposition of progressive discipline through the Policy, was reasonable.
The employee’s repeated failure to abide by Waste Management’s safety program in the face of clearly communicated and reasonable directions to watch the inward facing video footage coupled with his misconduct at meetings with management ultimately demonstrated that the employment relationship could not be restored. Waste Management, therefore, had just cause to dismiss the employee.
Takeaways
Clearly communicating expectations around workplace policies and consistent enforcement is key to upholding reasonable workplace rules and procedures. Inconsistently applying policies, or failing to communicate them to employees, can undermine even a reasonable workplace rule or procedure and weaken an employer’s position in a discipline or termination proceeding.
Employers should ensure that employees are aware of relevant workplace policies by making them accessible to employees and reinforcing them through regular training or reminders. Where an employee refuses to comply with an employer’s rules, follow the progressive discipline approach and remind them that discipline may be issued up to and including termination of employment.
Need More Information?
For more information or assistance on handling workplace misconduct and progressive discipline, contact Evan Campbell at ecampbell@filion.on.ca, Rebecca Rosenberg at rrosenberg@filion.on.ca, or your regular lawyer at the firm.
The author wishes to thank Jenna Beehler, a Summer Student in the Toronto office, for her assistance in preparing this Insight.
Download PDF
