Milazzo v. Autocar Connaisseur Inc.

Milazzo v. Autocar Connaisseur Inc.

The Tribunal held that the proposed definition of Safety-Sensitive Position is acceptable as drafted and applies to employees licensed to drive buses (including mechanics when required to drive) and that the addition 'and are not under regular supervision' would create uncertainty and is unnecessary; the Tribunal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 CHRT 5
Parties
Complainant: Salvatore Milazzo; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Autocar Connaisseur Inc.; Interested Party: Motor Coach Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Policy Issues Following Remedial Order
Outcome
Tribunal confirms Safety-Sensitive Position definition applies to licensed bus drivers (including mechanics called to drive); declines to rule on testing of mechanics not licensed to drive; orders amendment of policy language in Part IX replacing 'will' with 'may'; holds that last chance agreements cannot override...
Legal Topics
Drug and Alcohol Testing, Accommodation for Disability, Safety Sensitive Positions, Last Chance Agreements, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement / Undue Hardship
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Transportation Regulation Drug and Alcohol Testing Accommodation for Disability Safety Sensitive Positions Last Chance Agreements +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salvatore Milazzo

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Autocar Connaisseur Inc.

Respondent

Motor Coach Canada

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Ruling on Policy Issues Following Remedial Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the definition of "Safety-Sensitive Position" should exclude employees under regular supervision and whether mechanics may be included
  2. 2 Whether Part IX's mandatory termination language ('will') unlawfully displaces the duty to accommodate and must be changed to allow case-by-case assessment ('may')
  3. 3 Whether last chance agreements can contract out of the statutory duty to accommodate under human rights law

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the proposed definition of Safety-Sensitive Position is acceptable as drafted and applies to employees licensed to drive buses (including mechanics when required to drive) and that the addition 'and are not under regular supervision' would create uncertainty and is unnecessary; the Tribunal found the policy's mandatory termination language ('will') unlawfully removes case-by-case accommodation and ordered substitution of 'may' in Part IX; it ruled that last chance agreements cannot override the statutory duty to accommodate and cannot automatically preclude further accommodation, and declined to make findings about testing of mechanics not licensed to drive buses as...

Court Disposition

Tribunal confirms Safety-Sensitive Position definition applies to licensed bus drivers (including mechanics called to drive); declines to rule on testing of mechanics not licensed to drive; orders amendment of policy language in Part IX replacing 'will' with 'may'; holds that last chance agreements cannot override...

Orders

  • Replace the word 'will' with 'may' in the last sentence of Part IX (Consequences of a Policy Violation) of the Alcohol and Drug Policy
  • Confirm that the Safety-Sensitive Position definition applies to employees who are licensed to drive buses and who are required to operate a bus as part of their duties, including mechanics when called upon to drive