Radio-Canada is being forced to rehire a cameraman it fired three and a half years ago for driving a government-owned company vehicle while under the influence of cannabis and performing a dangerous maneuver.
The cameraman hired to document an event at the Quebec Citadel in June 2019 showed up at the station in the afternoon to start his shift. Immediately before departure, the journalist accompanying him visibly watched the cameraman, who was reversing the van with the tailgate open, without him noticing.
Explaining his particular maneuver, the driver had indicated that he was backing up to retrieve a toothbrush case that had fallen under the vehicle without getting dirty. On board, the journalist noticed a strong smell of cannabis and mentioned this to the driver.
The man, with twenty years of experience, would then have admitted “to have smoked before work”. The day went smoothly, but upon his return, the journalist, visibly uncomfortable with the situation, discussed it with a colleague and then with his manager.
Internal investigation
An internal investigation was launched at Radio-Canada and the employee was asked to explain himself. The excuse that the smell came from his raincoat, which was in the shed where his nephew had smoked “a big joint” of cannabis, did not seem credible to the employer.
The staff representative will describe that the general feeling was that “the complainant lied to their face”. The cameraman was officially fired on July 18, 2019.
noise level
However, the Syndicat des Communications de Radio-Canada brought the matter to arbitration. Referee Maureen Flynn initially thought it was “more plausible than [le caméraman] used that day and spontaneously admitted this to his colleague,” she added, but “the crux of the matter” was to determine if he was driving the vehicle while under the influence of drugs.
While giving little “credibility” to the dismissed employee’s testimony and still having “a doubt” about the cameraman’s intoxication, the referee also notes that Radio-Canada’s statement of the actual condition was silent about the employee’s intoxication. “It’s not up to the employee to prove that he was fit to drive,” she says.
“A possibility is not a probability,” concluded Referee Flynn, who overturned the sacking three and a half years later and also asked for lost wages to be paid. However, a five-day ban was maintained for the unsafe reverse maneuver, especially since it was a repeat offender.
Do you have any information about this story that you would like to share with us?
Do you have a scoop that might be of interest to our readers?