Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job

[Jarnhamar]

Pretty wild this guy kept his job after all of this. Sounds like his officer buddies need some bystander training.

Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job​

A B.C. Mountie who fell asleep while drunk in his unmarked cop car at a Burger King drive-thru has lost a month's pay and will lose 15 days annual leave.
The details are laid out in a recently published April 8 RCMP Notice of Conduct decision.

After a day of drinking at several RCMP colleagues' houses, Const. Blaise Picketts hopped in his unmarked police car with his RCMP service dog in the back and drove 25 kilometres to Maple Ridge.

On the way, he scraped the police vehicle on a concrete barrier while crossing the Golden Ears Bridge before arriving at the Burger King drive-thru.
He then fell asleep behind the wheel with his credit card in his hand and the engine running in the line-up.
Staff at the fast-food restaurant attempted to wake him up but after trying for 20 minutes called the police.

When the police arrived Const. Picketts told them to "fuck off" and wouldn't cooperate with being breathalyzed. He then bit the straw of the breathalyzer and wouldn't blow hard enough.

The officers then tried to arrest Const. Picketts. The drunken cop attempted to knee one of the officers in the groin and grabbed the handcuffs they were trying to put on him.

The officers called for backup as they weren't sure they were dealing with an RCMP officer or someone that had just stolen a police car.
It took several officers to get him into a police cruiser as Const. Picketts used his legs on the side of the vehicle to prevent himself from being pushed in.

Once in the police car, he was taken to the Maple Ridge detachment but his attitude didn't change.

While being photographed he gave the middle finger to the camera.

He then needed to be handcuffed again and physically forced into the cell.

Unsurprisingly, Const. Picketts admitted he had little recollection of the events due to how drunk he was but agreed the incident took place on April 9, 2020.
The RCMP Conduct Board decision said Const. Picketts was later charged with resisting arrest and refusing a breathalyzer test.

In June 2021, he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and was put on probation for three months and was issued a $1,000 fine. Crown prosecutors stayed the charge of refusing to provide a breathalyzer sample.

There is no explanation given for why the officer wasn't charged with drunk driving.

The decision said as an RCMP dog handler Const. Picketts was allowed to take his unmarked police vehicle home, and on his day off arranged to meet other dog handlers to train with their dogs.

Afterwards Const. Picketts drove to another RCMP member's home in Langley and stopped to pick up some alcohol.

Over the course of the afternoon Const. Picketts drove to several RCMP members' homes often stopping to buy booze on the way.

There is no mention in the decision that any of the other police officers attempted to prevent Const. Picketts from driving although they knew he'd been drinking.

At 2 a.m. he left an RCMP officer's home in Langley and drove to the Burger King in Maple Ridge where he was later arrested.

Const. Picketts service dog was in the police car when he was arrested along with a police dog drug kit, mobile workstation, and his firearm and ammunition.

"Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog," the RCMP Conduct Board ruled. "His behaviour was disrespectful, uncooperative and combative while resisting arrest. His actions caused (a) minor injury to two arresting officers."

The Board said Const. Picketts is a senior member with 13 years of service and "should have known better."

The decision said the officer had repaid the $7,000 of damage he caused to the vehicle when he hit the bridge and was genuinely remorseful for his actions.

"He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety," the decision read.

The Board said if it wasn't for Const. Picketts "significant efforts" to rehabilitate himself, he may have been dismissed from the force.

However, the Board instead fined him 30 days wages – although the amount is not disclosed – and docked him 15 days of vacation.

The officer was removed from the dog handling team and won't be able to get a promotion for three years.

He will also have to make a direct apology to the officers that arrested him at the Burger King.

Mod edit to embed link to article

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Pretty wild this guy kept his job after all of this. Sounds like his officer buddies need some bystander training.

Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job​

A B.C. Mountie who fell asleep while drunk in his unmarked cop car at a Burger King drive-thru has lost a month's pay and will lose 15 days annual leave.
The details are laid out in a recently published April 8 RCMP Notice of Conduct decision.

After a day of drinking at several RCMP colleagues' houses, Const. Blaise Picketts hopped in his unmarked police car with his RCMP service dog in the back and drove 25 kilometres to Maple Ridge.

On the way, he scraped the police vehicle on a concrete barrier while crossing the Golden Ears Bridge before arriving at the Burger King drive-thru.
He then fell asleep behind the wheel with his credit card in his hand and the engine running in the line-up.
Staff at the fast-food restaurant attempted to wake him up but after trying for 20 minutes called the police.

When the police arrived Const. Picketts told them to "fuck off" and wouldn't cooperate with being breathalyzed. He then bit the straw of the breathalyzer and wouldn't blow hard enough.

The officers then tried to arrest Const. Picketts. The drunken cop attempted to knee one of the officers in the groin and grabbed the handcuffs they were trying to put on him.

The officers called for backup as they weren't sure they were dealing with an RCMP officer or someone that had just stolen a police car.
It took several officers to get him into a police cruiser as Const. Picketts used his legs on the side of the vehicle to prevent himself from being pushed in.

Once in the police car, he was taken to the Maple Ridge detachment but his attitude didn't change.

While being photographed he gave the middle finger to the camera.

He then needed to be handcuffed again and physically forced into the cell.

Unsurprisingly, Const. Picketts admitted he had little recollection of the events due to how drunk he was but agreed the incident took place on April 9, 2020.
The RCMP Conduct Board decision said Const. Picketts was later charged with resisting arrest and refusing a breathalyzer test.

In June 2021, he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and was put on probation for three months and was issued a $1,000 fine. Crown prosecutors stayed the charge of refusing to provide a breathalyzer sample.

There is no explanation given for why the officer wasn't charged with drunk driving.

The decision said as an RCMP dog handler Const. Picketts was allowed to take his unmarked police vehicle home, and on his day off arranged to meet other dog handlers to train with their dogs.

Afterwards Const. Picketts drove to another RCMP member's home in Langley and stopped to pick up some alcohol.

Over the course of the afternoon Const. Picketts drove to several RCMP members' homes often stopping to buy booze on the way.

There is no mention in the decision that any of the other police officers attempted to prevent Const. Picketts from driving although they knew he'd been drinking.

At 2 a.m. he left an RCMP officer's home in Langley and drove to the Burger King in Maple Ridge where he was later arrested.

Const. Picketts service dog was in the police car when he was arrested along with a police dog drug kit, mobile workstation, and his firearm and ammunition.

"Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog," the RCMP Conduct Board ruled. "His behaviour was disrespectful, uncooperative and combative while resisting arrest. His actions caused (a) minor injury to two arresting officers."

The Board said Const. Picketts is a senior member with 13 years of service and "should have known better."

The decision said the officer had repaid the $7,000 of damage he caused to the vehicle when he hit the bridge and was genuinely remorseful for his actions.

"He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety," the decision read.

The Board said if it wasn't for Const. Picketts "significant efforts" to rehabilitate himself, he may have been dismissed from the force.

However, the Board instead fined him 30 days wages – although the amount is not disclosed – and docked him 15 days of vacation.

The officer was removed from the dog handling team and won't be able to get a promotion for three years.

He will also have to make a direct apology to the officers that arrested him at the Burger King.

I bet he's vaccinated though

Why we continue to tolerate this from our Law Enforcement Agencies in this Country is beyond me?

 

[Harris]

Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?

 

[OldSolduer]

I bet he's vaccinated though

Why we continue to tolerate this from our Law Enforcement Agencies in this Country is beyond me?

Because the RCMP need the people. I’m sure that is one reason.

 

[The Bread Guy]

In case anyone wants to read the decision itself

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?

Not an expert and there are others way more versed in these matters than me: @Bruce Monkhouse

Alcohol Charges are something a Union will absolutely not defend you over. I was told by my current Union that the four things they won't have a leg to stand on are:.

1. Alcohol Misconduct
2. Drugs
3. Lying
4. Stealing

One, they have no grounds to support you and also, like my rep said, "if you have those issues we don't want you working with us because you can't be trusted".

 

[Jarnhamar]

Because the RCMP need the people. I’m sure that is one reason.

Yup. I mean it's a savvy business model when you think of it.

They don't need to fill a vacant position by firing the guy.
They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more.
15 days worth of vacation are now work days- more savings.
They give $7000 back to the community by locally repairing the vehicle.
They don't have to worry about meriting him for promotion for 3 years.
The other officers who apparently ignored their drinking and driving co-worker have to behave themselves for a while since their supervisors have dirt on them.
Whopping $1000 fine given over to the crown.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Pretty wild this guy kept his job after all of this. Sounds like his officer buddies need some bystander training.

Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job​

A B.C. Mountie who fell asleep while drunk in his unmarked cop car at a Burger King drive-thru has lost a month's pay and will lose 15 days annual leave.
The details are laid out in a recently published April 8 RCMP Notice of Conduct decision.

After a day of drinking at several RCMP colleagues' houses, Const. Blaise Picketts hopped in his unmarked police car with his RCMP service dog in the back and drove 25 kilometres to Maple Ridge.

On the way, he scraped the police vehicle on a concrete barrier while crossing the Golden Ears Bridge before arriving at the Burger King drive-thru.
He then fell asleep behind the wheel with his credit card in his hand and the engine running in the line-up.
Staff at the fast-food restaurant attempted to wake him up but after trying for 20 minutes called the police.

When the police arrived Const. Picketts told them to "fuck off" and wouldn't cooperate with being breathalyzed. He then bit the straw of the breathalyzer and wouldn't blow hard enough.

The officers then tried to arrest Const. Picketts. The drunken cop attempted to knee one of the officers in the groin and grabbed the handcuffs they were trying to put on him.

The officers called for backup as they weren't sure they were dealing with an RCMP officer or someone that had just stolen a police car.
It took several officers to get him into a police cruiser as Const. Picketts used his legs on the side of the vehicle to prevent himself from being pushed in.

Once in the police car, he was taken to the Maple Ridge detachment but his attitude didn't change.

While being photographed he gave the middle finger to the camera.

He then needed to be handcuffed again and physically forced into the cell.

Unsurprisingly, Const. Picketts admitted he had little recollection of the events due to how drunk he was but agreed the incident took place on April 9, 2020.
The RCMP Conduct Board decision said Const. Picketts was later charged with resisting arrest and refusing a breathalyzer test.

In June 2021, he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and was put on probation for three months and was issued a $1,000 fine. Crown prosecutors stayed the charge of refusing to provide a breathalyzer sample.

There is no explanation given for why the officer wasn't charged with drunk driving.

The decision said as an RCMP dog handler Const. Picketts was allowed to take his unmarked police vehicle home, and on his day off arranged to meet other dog handlers to train with their dogs.

Afterwards Const. Picketts drove to another RCMP member's home in Langley and stopped to pick up some alcohol.

Over the course of the afternoon Const. Picketts drove to several RCMP members' homes often stopping to buy booze on the way.

There is no mention in the decision that any of the other police officers attempted to prevent Const. Picketts from driving although they knew he'd been drinking.

At 2 a.m. he left an RCMP officer's home in Langley and drove to the Burger King in Maple Ridge where he was later arrested.

Const. Picketts service dog was in the police car when he was arrested along with a police dog drug kit, mobile workstation, and his firearm and ammunition.

"Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog," the RCMP Conduct Board ruled. "His behaviour was disrespectful, uncooperative and combative while resisting arrest. His actions caused (a) minor injury to two arresting officers."

The Board said Const. Picketts is a senior member with 13 years of service and "should have known better."

The decision said the officer had repaid the $7,000 of damage he caused to the vehicle when he hit the bridge and was genuinely remorseful for his actions.

"He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety," the decision read.

The Board said if it wasn't for Const. Picketts "significant efforts" to rehabilitate himself, he may have been dismissed from the force.

However, the Board instead fined him 30 days wages – although the amount is not disclosed – and docked him 15 days of vacation.

The officer was removed from the dog handling team and won't be able to get a promotion for three years.

He will also have to make a direct apology to the officers that arrested him at the Burger King.

Mod edit to embed link to article

It's OK, that's Maple Ridge culture.

I'm sure the plea in mitigation included "at least he didn't push his busted vehicle into the Fraser River to get rid of the evidence."

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Yup. I mean it's a savvy business model when you think of it.

They don't need to fill a vacant position by firing the guy.
They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more.
15 days worth of vacation are now work days- more savings.
They give $7000 back to the community by locally repairing the vehicle.
They don't have to worry about meriting him for promotion for 3 years.
The other officers who apparently ignored their drinking and driving co-worker have to behave themselves for a while since their supervisors have dirt on them.
Whopping $1000 fine given over to the crown.

Ain't that the truth LOL

This shows how much of a joke the statement "Officer's need a clean record for criminal liability purposes" is.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The union will argue that the drinking is likley a effect of the work and PTSD and they will likely have a leg to stand on.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The union will argue that the drinking is likley a effect of the work and PTSD and they will likely have a leg to stand on.

But how do they explain away the "resisting arrest" conviction?

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, from the decision, mitigating factors ....

"... [67] Of the numerous mitigating factors proposed by the parties, I have retained the following.

[68] First, Constable Picketts has accepted full responsibility for his actions and has made every effort to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. He admitted to the allegations and acknowledged his misconduct at the earliest opportunity. In addition, he immediately sought treatment, and pled guilty to a criminal charge arising out of this incident.

[69] Second, Constable Picketts has demonstrated genuine remorse for his actions. This is reflected in the numerous letters of reference, which describe his reaction to this incident. Constable Picketts expressed a long-standing desire to apologize to the members involved in his arrest. It is acknowledged that it would not have been appropriate for him to do so until the criminal and conduct processes were resolved. He remains prepared to do so now. It is also noted that Constable Picketts has paid reparations to the RCMP for the damage caused to the police vehicle in the amount of $7,000.

[70] Third, Constable Picketts’ performance evaluations demonstrate that, early in his service, he developed a reputation as a reliable, proactive member. He is well regarded and, in the last ten years, consistently exceeded expectations. He is recognized for his superior interpersonal and leadership skills, and proficiency as a police service dog handler. Constable Picketts has also provided numerous letters of support that speak, in detail, to his character and dedication as a member of the RCMP, including his engagement with the community and support of the Police Dog Services program. Of particular note are those from his most recent supervisor and colleagues who, with full knowledge of his misconduct, would welcome him back.

[71] Fourth, the medical evidence indicates that Constable Picketts’ conduct was related to underlying and previously undiagnosed medical conditions, namely post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder. I acknowledge that Constable Picketts was also experiencing personal stressors in his life at the time of this incident.

[72] Fifth, the Subject Member Representative submits that, while they were the result of extremely poor judgment, Constable Picketts’ actions were not malicious. While I acknowledge that Constable Picketts did not set out, on the morning of April 9, 2020, to cause harm, his decision to drive while under the influence of alcohol that afternoon, and in the early hours of April 10, 2020, was deliberate and carried with it a reasonable likelihood of causing harm. Consequently, I give very little, if any weight to this factor.

[73] Finally, and most significantly, Constable Picketts immediately sought treatment. He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety. These are set out, in detail, in the supporting documentation. His dedication to this treatment and to his ongoing health is impressive. His treating practitioners highlight several factors that support a favourable prognosis for his sustained recovery, thus reducing his risk of recidivism.

(...)

[74] Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless, and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog. The Conduct Authority Representative submits that, but for Constable Picketts’ significant efforts to rehabilitate himself, dismissal would be an appropriate outcome. I agree.

[75] I find that the proposed measures recognize the accepted legal principle that when a member’s misconduct is caused at least in part by a disability, it is appropriate for a conduct board to consider that disability in determining the appropriate conduct measures. Consequently, I am required to consider the RCMP duty to accommodate in determining the appropriate conduct measures.

[76] The medical evidence establishes that Constable Picketts’ extensive efforts to seek treatment and commitment to his ongoing health support a positive prognosis for a sustained recovery. A return to work is medically supported. That said, Constable Picketts’ rehabilitative potential is not the only factor I must consider in determining whether the proposed conduct measures are not against the public interest.

[77] The proposed financial penalty of 45 days is at the highest end of the range, short of dismissal. Its impact, while somewhat mitigated by being split between a forfeiture of pay and leave, is substantial.

[78] Additionally, Constable Picketts was preparing to take on a greater leadership role, and had applied on at least one promotional opportunity. By virtue of his ineligibility for promotion, he will have to wait three years in order to pursue these goals.

[79] The parties draw particular attention to the impact of Constable Picketts’ proposed transfer. Constable Picketts has dedicated close to a decade of hard work and extra training to achieving his goal of becoming a police service dog handler, all of which was done above and beyond the performance of his regular duties. His performance assessments and letters of support make it abundantly clear that he is passionate about, and extremely dedicated to this work. His transfer out of Police Dog Services is a substantial conduct measure, and one which, as submitted, will be profoundly felt by Constable Picketts.

[80] Collectively, the proposed measures are significant and are commensurate to the severity of the misconduct ..."

 

[daftandbarmy]

For the record, from the decision, mitigating factors ....

"... [67] Of the numerous mitigating factors proposed by the parties, I have retained the following.

[68] First, Constable Picketts has accepted full responsibility for his actions and has made every effort to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. He admitted to the allegations and acknowledged his misconduct at the earliest opportunity. In addition, he immediately sought treatment, and pled guilty to a criminal charge arising out of this incident.

[69] Second, Constable Picketts has demonstrated genuine remorse for his actions. This is reflected in the numerous letters of reference, which describe his reaction to this incident. Constable Picketts expressed a long-standing desire to apologize to the members involved in his arrest. It is acknowledged that it would not have been appropriate for him to do so until the criminal and conduct processes were resolved. He remains prepared to do so now. It is also noted that Constable Picketts has paid reparations to the RCMP for the damage caused to the police vehicle in the amount of $7,000.

[70] Third, Constable Picketts’ performance evaluations demonstrate that, early in his service, he developed a reputation as a reliable, proactive member. He is well regarded and, in the last ten years, consistently exceeded expectations. He is recognized for his superior interpersonal and leadership skills, and proficiency as a police service dog handler. Constable Picketts has also provided numerous letters of support that speak, in detail, to his character and dedication as a member of the RCMP, including his engagement with the community and support of the Police Dog Services program. Of particular note are those from his most recent supervisor and colleagues who, with full knowledge of his misconduct, would welcome him back.

[71] Fourth, the medical evidence indicates that Constable Picketts’ conduct was related to underlying and previously undiagnosed medical conditions, namely post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder. I acknowledge that Constable Picketts was also experiencing personal stressors in his life at the time of this incident.

[72] Fifth, the Subject Member Representative submits that, while they were the result of extremely poor judgment, Constable Picketts’ actions were not malicious. While I acknowledge that Constable Picketts did not set out, on the morning of April 9, 2020, to cause harm, his decision to drive while under the influence of alcohol that afternoon, and in the early hours of April 10, 2020, was deliberate and carried with it a reasonable likelihood of causing harm. Consequently, I give very little, if any weight to this factor.

[73] Finally, and most significantly, Constable Picketts immediately sought treatment. He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety. These are set out, in detail, in the supporting documentation. His dedication to this treatment and to his ongoing health is impressive. His treating practitioners highlight several factors that support a favourable prognosis for his sustained recovery, thus reducing his risk of recidivism.

(...)

[74] Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless, and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog. The Conduct Authority Representative submits that, but for Constable Picketts’ significant efforts to rehabilitate himself, dismissal would be an appropriate outcome. I agree.

[75] I find that the proposed measures recognize the accepted legal principle that when a member’s misconduct is caused at least in part by a disability, it is appropriate for a conduct board to consider that disability in determining the appropriate conduct measures. Consequently, I am required to consider the RCMP duty to accommodate in determining the appropriate conduct measures.

[76] The medical evidence establishes that Constable Picketts’ extensive efforts to seek treatment and commitment to his ongoing health support a positive prognosis for a sustained recovery. A return to work is medically supported. That said, Constable Picketts’ rehabilitative potential is not the only factor I must consider in determining whether the proposed conduct measures are not against the public interest.

[77] The proposed financial penalty of 45 days is at the highest end of the range, short of dismissal. Its impact, while somewhat mitigated by being split between a forfeiture of pay and leave, is substantial.

[78] Additionally, Constable Picketts was preparing to take on a greater leadership role, and had applied on at least one promotional opportunity. By virtue of his ineligibility for promotion, he will have to wait three years in order to pursue these goals.

[79] The parties draw particular attention to the impact of Constable Picketts’ proposed transfer. Constable Picketts has dedicated close to a decade of hard work and extra training to achieving his goal of becoming a police service dog handler, all of which was done above and beyond the performance of his regular duties. His performance assessments and letters of support make it abundantly clear that he is passionate about, and extremely dedicated to this work. His transfer out of Police Dog Services is a substantial conduct measure, and one which, as submitted, will be profoundly felt by Constable Picketts.

[80] Collectively, the proposed measures are significant and are commensurate to the severity of the misconduct ..."

And he forgot the phone number for the local taxi service

 

[Booter]

He should have been fired. I’m tired of this nonsense. But hey “he’s a good guy!” And “he has PTSD”

Go do something else. Being a cop isn’t a golden ticket to a pension and twenty years of employment. Once you ve proven your decision making is broken- even if we caused it- eased out of the job into something else. It can be gentle and with assistance but it’s stupid that we just shrug and move on- it can be done with empathy. It doesn’t need to be callous but we need to expect better from the police than this.

That said- that would have been disproportionate given the fact that we keep people who commit sexual assault.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Showing remorse and "seeking treatment" is the first thing defense lawyers round' here tell their clients to do.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

He should have been fired. I’m tired of this nonsense. But hey “he’s a good guy!” And “he has PTSD”

Go do something else. Being a cop isn’t a golden ticket to a pension and twenty years of employment. Once you ve proven your decision making is broken- even if we caused it- eased out of the job into something else. It can be gentle and with assistance but it’s stupid that we just shrug and move on

People screw up, we've all been there in some form or another.

I don't think failing a breathalyzer is a cause to immediately fire someone and people do deserve second chances but....

There is a being drunk and failing a breathalyzer, then there is:

1. Being drunk
2. Refusing to take a breathalyzer
3. Being in your police vehicle
4. Being in possession of a firearm
5. Having your police dog in the car with you
6. Crashing your vehicle
7. Assaulting the Police Officers who are arresting you
8. Not cooperating with the Police after you've been arrested

Did I miss anything

That's just an incredible amount of poor judgment all packaged up together. The issues started before the incident even took place.

1. Why was the member in possession of alcohol while operating a Government vehicle?
2. Why was the member using a Government vehicle for non-Government business?

Just those two things get you fired at my work. 1. Alcohol Misconduct, 2. Stealing.

In fact, no alcohol on company property is our rule. My hotel rooms I stay at that they pay for are company property btw.

 

[mariomike]

The union will argue that the drinking is likley a effect of the work and PTSD and they will likely have a leg to stand on.

Pretty hard to get kicked out of some jobs. Transferred to another department, maybe.

Even Locomotive Engineers get re-instated.

Arbitrator reinstates locomotive engineer fired for drinking whiskey on the job | Vey Willetts LLP | Employment Law | Ottawa

Generally speaking, employers have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.

www.vwlawyers.ca

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Pretty hard to get kicked out of some jobs. Transferred to another department, maybe.

Even Locomotive Engineers get re-instated.

Arbitrator reinstates locomotive engineer fired for drinking whiskey on the job | Vey Willetts LLP | Employment Law | Ottawa

Generally speaking, employers have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.

www.vwlawyers.ca

But he was fired aka no money other than EI.

His case would have easily taken over a year in arbitration. That engineer would have lost out on 170k+ in wages for just a year of termination. He would have got some of it back when he was reinstated but not all of it.

This is different, this cop never even lost his salary. He never got fired in the first place.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... this cop never even lost his salary. He never got fired in the first place.

Correct on the second count, don't think so on the second

... They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more ...

Now is that enough? Bash on, bye's!

 

[mariomike]

Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?

Unionization seems to make it harder, but not impossible.

From another arbitration,

It is important to remember that this decision occurred in the unionized context, where employment can generally only be ended for just cause (which is dissimilar to most non-unionized situations).

Vey Willetts LLP is an Ottawa-based employment and labour law boutique that provides timely and cost-effective legal advice to help employees and employers resolve workplace issues in the National Capital Region and across Ontario.