Link to CROA&DR 3823.doc
Link to CROA&DR 3823.txt
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3823
Heard in
concerning
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY
and
UNITED STEELWORKERS, LOCAL 2004
DISPUTE:
The discharge of M. Larry Cartier effective
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The
The Company disagrees with the Union’s contentions and has
declined the
FOR THE
(SGD.) R. GATZKA (SGD) D. BRODIE
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE FOR: VICE-PRESIDENT, LABOUR RELATIONS
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
D. Brodie –
Manager, Labour Relations,
K. Morris –
Manager, Labour Relations,
There appeared on behalf of the
P. Jacques –
Chief Steward, Mountain Region,
R. Gatzka –
Staff Representative,
L. Cartier – Grievor
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The material before the Arbitrator confirms that Mr. Cartier
was responsible for a cardinal rules infraction when he caused the gang for
which he was responsible in his capacity as foreman to be outside their track
occupancy limits on
The sole issue in these proceedings is to resolve the
parties’ disagreement at to the appropriate measure of discipline in the
circumstances. The Arbitrator can readily understand the Company’s concern. It
argues that the grievor has an extensive disciplinary record, involving
previous rules infractions. Its representative notes, in part, that the grievor
was previously discharged for a similar infraction involving a violation of
rule 803 when he failed to obtain proper protection for the movement of his
crew on
The Company submits that these incidents, and several others
dating back to 1987, gave reasonable grounds to the Company to invoke the
principle of the culminating incident in terminating the grievor’s services by
reason of the events of
While the Arbitrator can appreciate the Company’s
perspective, there are, as noted by the
In the Arbitrator’s view it is also not insignificant that the grievor incurred no significant rules-related discipline from August of 2000 until the time of his termination in July of 2009, a period of some nine years of discipline free service. That span of good service is to be contrasted with the relatively regular incidents of discipline which marred his employment record in the period between 1990 and 2000. In that ten year period he was disciplined at various levels on some fourteen occasions. In the Arbitrator’s view it is not insignificant that the grievor’s spotty performance during that decade must be understood to have resulted, at least in substantial part, from his condition of clinical depression which was eventually diagnosed and, as the record clearly demonstrates, eventually resolved.
While the Arbitrator can understand the Company’s viewpoint, in my views a better way of viewing Mr. Cartier’s infraction in the case at hand is to ask what might be the appropriate measure of discipline for an employee of close to ten years’ service with no prior discipline whatsoever. It does not appear disputed that in a circumstance of that kind the normal measure of discipline for a track occupancy violation would be in the order of twenty to thirty demerits. I am satisfied that this is not an appropriate case for compensation. However, given that Mr. Cartier is sixty years old and has some twenty-six years of service, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for reinstatement, albeit on conditions fashioned to protect the Company’s legitimate interests.
For the foregoing reasons the grievance is allowed, in part.
The Arbitrator directs that Mr. Cartier be reinstated into employment
forthwith, subject to his being permanently restricted from being assigned in
any position which involves holding a track occupancy permit. His reinstatement
shall be without loss of seniority and without compensation, with his record to
reflect twenty demerits for the events of
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER
ARBITRATOR