Made with Love

Hamilton city worker who crashed car while drunk gets to keep his job

Caesarsalad

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
106
A City of Hamilton employee who was fired for crashing his work vehicle while driving drunk the wrong way on a highway is getting his job back.
John Fougere, a 22-year employee of the city, was fired in May 2010 after he caused $9,000 worth of damage to a city-owned car driving impaired while off-duty. He drove onto the wrong ramp on Hwy. 403 and was attempting to exit when he slammed into the back of a tractor-trailer.

A provincial arbitrator ruled on Nov. 7 that the city must rehire Fougere. He’s now able to return to his job as a water distribution operator as soon as tests prove he is alcohol and drug free. He will be subject to random drug and alcohol testing for the next five years but will maintain his seniority, pension and benefits.
City staff say they stand by their decision to fire Fougere, but there’s little more they can do in this situation.

“There is a frustration for us. Those are behaviours that we don’t condone and don’t tolerate. We, as a city, tried to respond in an appropriate fashion,” said Lora Fontana, the city’s director of labour and employee relations. “The unfortunate part is, the arbitrator didn’t agree with us. And we don’t have much of a say, unfortunately.”
But Derron Vernon, president of CUPE Local 5167, said Fougere deserves a second chance.

“I guess you’d have to walk in his shoes to understand the history around the issues,” Vernon said. “I would say he’s got the right attitude to get back and to be a productive employee again.”

The issue dates back to May 2010, when Fougere took his work vehicle home after finishing his shift for the day at 3 p.m. Fougere had his supervisor’s permission to take the car home, but wasn’t permitted to use it for personal errands.

However, instead of driving home, Fougere stopped at a rental property he owned to pick up cheques from his tenants. During the next three hours, Fougere and his two tenants drank 16 bottles of beer and a 40-ounce bottle of brandy.

Just before 7 p.m., Fougere got back into his work vehicle. According to the arbitrator’s ruling, the 911 calls made that night said Fougere was driving erratically and narrowly missing other cars. The crash happened as Fougere was trying to leave the 403 and get back on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway.

After the crash, Fougere twice tried to restart his car and had to be prevented from leaving the vehicle by onlookers. The police officer at the scene said Fougere “fell out the driver’s door” and twice blew three times over the legal limit.

Fougere was convicted of impaired driving and given a $1,500 fine and a one-year driving ban. He entered alcohol counselling and, according to the arbitrator’s ruling, says he hasn’t had a drink since the crash. He also testified that he made a “huge” and very serious mistake, and that he didn’t blame the city for firing him.

In his decision, arbitrator George Surdykowski said the city was justified in firing Fougere. However, he ruled that since alcoholism is a disability and Fougere demonstrated remorse and a willingness to change, he deserved his job back.

“Alcoholism is a disability, and though neither it nor any other disability excuses employment misconduct, it can mitigate it, particularly where the employee acknowledges and takes responsibility for his addiction … I am satisfied that this is such a case.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/articl...hed-car-while-drunk-gets-to-keep-his-job?bn=1
 
I like the handle and the tits in your avatar picture.

Now to your post. How would the arbitrator have ruled if "That" drunk with a disabilty had struck one of his family members?.
 
Getting his job back. It should never have happened.

Why not, you don't believe alcoholism is a form of a disease? He seems to have been remorseful from all accounts, he made a mistake, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving him a second chance.
 
I do believe alcoholism is a disease, most of my family are alcoholics. However, disease or not, he did break the law and damage company property while under the influence and might well have killed someone. I'm just about the most open guy for most things, but drinking and driving I can not support under any circumstances.

I am biased about this though, as two of my very dear friends have been killed by impaired drivers.
 
Union did what a union is suppose to do, fight for it's paying members. Yes as Chokemychicken (please change your avatar) stated, he was remorseful, was not on company time and trust me will be dearly paying for his stupidity. You take his job away and the man might as well get drunk again and this time run his car off the closest bridge.
 
Union did what a union is suppose to do, fight for it's paying members. Yes as Chokemychicken (please change your avatar) stated, he was remorseful, was not on company time and trust me will be dearly paying for his stupidity. You take his job away and the man might as well get drunk again and this time run his car off the closest bridge.
There's a plan!
 
It's hard to feel sympathy for a drunk driver, as stated earlier he is lucky he didn't kill anyone.
 
Since when did alcoholism become a disability? A disease yes, but a disability? Holy fuck so what the arbitrator is saying is that if the driver gets drunk enough, he can go on disability pay and never have to work again?

You kind of have to see the reasoning behind him being rehired though: if a secretary got drunk after work and wrecked her car, other than not being able to drive for a year or so, her work isn't affected. Same as this case. The mitigating factor though is the damage to city owned property. At the very least he should have to repay the cost to repair the vehicle.....(but of course that makes too much sense).
 
Back
Top Bottom