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

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
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.”


Toronto News: Hamilton city worker who crashed car while drunk gets to keep his job - thestar.com
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
...“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.”

There is nothing new here. I'm surprised the City of Hamilton is so behind the times.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Alcoholism isn't a disability, it's a choice.

I know that from personal experience, it's a decision made by the person, each time they take a drink.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
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.

These kind of cases are always hard to second guess. Tramping on eggs I'd say he should get he should get his job back. Apparently the damage was only to property. The purpose of any punishment is to stop the behaviour and there are signs it has stopped, for how long only time will tell. The "tools" of alcohol and drug testing are available. He's already suffered 18 months loss of pay. If this employee returns to be a responsible employee, he and the community at large are much better off. Another consideration would have to be before the incident was he a productive and valuable employee?
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
These kind of cases are always hard to second guess. Tramping on eggs I'd say he should get he should get his job back. Apparently the damage was only to property. The purpose of any punishment is to stop the behaviour and there are signs it has stopped, for how long only time will tell. The "tools" of alcohol and drug testing are available. He's already suffered 18 months loss of pay. If this employee returns to be a responsible employee, he and the community at large are much better off. Another consideration would have to be before the incident was he a productive and valuable employee?

So you're OK with this because he only caused property damage, but what if he would have killed someone while he was drunk instead of just wrecking a car? Drinking and driving is essentially playing Russian Roulette: its nothing but blind luck that with his BAC (3 times the normal limit) that he DIDN'T injure or kill someone. We can agree that alcoholism is a disease but drinking and driving is still a choice, one covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. This guy committed a Criminal Code offense, with a company vehicle, which he was allowed to drive home with the understanding the vehicle was not to be used for personal business. He disregarded the instructions of his employer, he committed a crime, he caused property damage to his employer's property. Sorry, he should NOT get his job back.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
So you're OK with this because he only caused property damage, but what if he would have killed someone while he was drunk instead of just wrecking a car? Drinking and driving is essentially playing Russian Roulette: its nothing but blind luck that with his BAC (3 times the normal limit) that he DIDN'T injure or kill someone. We can agree that alcoholism is a disease but drinking and driving is still a choice, one covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. This guy committed a Criminal Code offense, with a company vehicle, which he was allowed to drive home with the understanding the vehicle was not to be used for personal business. He disregarded the instructions of his employer, he committed a crime, he caused property damage to his employer's property. Sorry, he should NOT get his job back.

I hear you, but we can only deal with the facts that have occurred so far. If we start dealing with "what ifs", then we have a huge slate confronting us. At this point it becomes a best case scenario vs. a worst case scenario. I think the odds are better it will turn out to be a best scenario in that he has learned his lesson.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
My dad is an alcoholic, just like the rest of his family. It just finally killed his sister through massive organ failure at the ripe old age of 56.

My dad was also a chronic drunk driver. We grew up in a small town, on a farm, and no one batted an eye lash at the time if someone jumped in their vehicle after the bar. I honestly thought dad would enver quit drinking and driving.

Then one night he got pulled over, thrown in jail overnight, and had his license suspended. For anyone who works in the oil patch, you know, this is usually a death sentence to your job. Thankfully, his employer was willing to work with him, let him get the blow box installed as per the court's instructions, and continue work while on his one year suspension, during which he could operate only his company truck, and only on business.

My dad no longer drinks and drives. Honestly... an old farm hand oil patch worker, and he no longer drinks and drives. Isn't that the point of our laws and our sentencing system? It's not to create societal outcasts, it's to address a behaviour and correct it the simplest way possible, at the least cost to society. Keeping someone working, keeping someone in society, in a way that corrects the issue, is the best outcome.

Drunk drivers are a testament to the effectiveness of propoganda campaigns. They are no more heinous than any other person who makes a bad decision that kills people.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I really think the debate about whether addiction is a choice or not, is perhaps too big for a side convo in this thread. Anyone feel like dedicating a thread to just that?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
\

Nope being an alcoholic is a born trait. Believe it or not there are alcoholics alive who have never taken a drink!

Having an addictive personality and a tendency towards addiction of any kind is a genetic trait. It is not alcoholism specifically.

Back to the OP and responses.

This guy should be gone for good. I don't know what kind of bleeding heart liberal this arbitrator was but he should be gone too...."alcoholism is a disability"???? WTF!!! I guess so is me wanting to sleep in all the time. Where does this BS stop. Alcoholism may be an addiction but 16 beer and a 40 of brandy and then getting behind the wheel is a choice....a knowing choice. The kid even said he agreed with the city firing his A** but then lawyers up and gets a moron who probably can't tell time with a digital watch to award him his job back. This kid broke so many rules it's not funny and 3 times the limit, come on people, he should be in jail not on the public payroll with beaucoup benefits and pension. He has learned nothing from this except a good lawyer can get you off for anything.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Having an addictive personality and a tendency towards addiction of any kind is a genetic trait. It is not alcoholism specifically.

Back to the OP and responses.

This guy should be gone for good. I don't know what kind of bleeding heart liberal this arbitrator was but he should be gone too...."alcoholism is a disability"???? WTF!!! I guess so is me wanting to sleep in all the time. Where does this BS stop. Alcoholism may be an addiction but 16 beer and a 40 of brandy and then getting behind the wheel is a choice....a knowing choice. The kid even said he agreed with the city firing his A** but then lawyers up and gets a moron who probably can't tell time with a digital watch to award him his job back. This kid broke so many rules it's not funny and 3 times the limit, come on people, he should be in jail not on the public payroll with beaucoup benefits and pension. He has learned nothing from this except a good lawyer can get you off for anything.

I didn't realize a "kid" was involved, I was responding to the 22 year employee. Can't agree with you, Nick. Punishment has already been meted out and served. How long should punishment for $9000 damage continue? People do change their ways. Who will be better off to continue the punishment at this stage?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
I didn't realize a "kid" was involved, I was responding to the 22 year employee. Can't agree with you, Nick. Punishment has already been meted out and served. How long should punishment for $9000 damage continue? People do change their ways. Who will be better off to continue the punishment at this stage?

22 years old is still a kid. Not enough life experience there to call him anything else.

It is not punishment for $9000 in damage that is the issue. He ignored instructions from his supervisor and use a city vehicle for personal gain. He CHOSE to consume copious amounts of alcohol. He then CHOSE to get behind the wheel at 3 times the legal limit and endanger thousands of lives. For doing this he got a $1500 fine and is rewarded with a good job with good benefits and a pension. I think the crimes are far more than $9000 in property damage and the punishment does not even equate to the $9000. I think if he had lost his license for a year or 5 and been sent to jail with mandatory drug & alcohol counselling the people on the streets of Hamilton would be safer and therefore be better off.