Link to CROA&DR 3858.doc
Link to CROA&DR 3858.txt
CANADIAN
RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3858
Heard in Montreal, Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Concerning
CANADIAN NATIONAL
RAILWAY COMPANY
and
TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL
CONFERENCE
DISPUTE:
Assessment
of 10 demerits to Conductor R. Savary, for “You (sic) abandonment of your
assignment on 17 November, 2006”.
JOINT STATEMENT OF
ISSUE:
On November 22, 2006,
Conductor Savary was required to attend a Company investigation in connection
with the circumstances surrounding “alleged abandonment of assignment on 17
November, 2006”. Conductor Savary, subsequent to the investigation, was
assessed 10 demerits.
It is the Union’s position that the discipline assessed, in
consideration of all the factors relating to this matter, was not timely,
unwarranted and should be removed in its entirety.
The Company
disagrees and deems that the discipline assessed was both warranted and
appropriate in this instance.
FOR THE UNION: FOR THE
COMPANY:
(SGD.)
J. R. ROBBINS (SGD.) F. O’NEILL
GENERAL CHAIRMAN MANAGER,
LABOUR RELATIONS
There appeared on behalf of the
Company:
F. O’Neill – Manager, Labour
Relations, Toronto
D. Gagné – Sr. Manager, Labour Relations, Montreal
R. McDougal – Sr. Director, Labour
Relations, Montreal
J. Kelly – Sr. Manager, Business Management, Montreal
And on behalf of the Union:
M. A. Church –
Counsel, Toronto
J. R. Robbins –
General Chairman, Sarnia
R. Savary –
Grievor
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The record
reveals that the grievor has an extensive record of attendance problems, with a
pattern of booking sick and booking rest which substantially reduced her
attendance figures in 2006. It appears that on September 7, 2006, when Ms. Savary was
served with a notice to appear for an investigation concerning her attendance,
she immediately booked sick, saying that she was under excessive stress, and
she failed to appear at the investigation scheduled for two days later. The
Company subsequently sought to conduct an investigation into her non-appearance
at the investigation, and served a notice to appear at a further investigation
for that purpose on November
17, 2006, shortly after she came on duty on that day. She
immediately responded by booking off as unfit and left her work assignment
shortly thereafter. The Company subsequently assessed ten demerits against the
grievor for abandonment of her assignment on November 17, 2006.
The Arbitrator
notes the submission of the Union that the
grievor felt that she was being harassed and intimidated by a supervisor, and
that the notice of a further investigation induced a condition of stress. With
respect, while the Arbitrator can appreciate that the employee was not pleased
with the notice of investigation that was given to her, there is a degree of
application of the principle of “work now – grieve later” which comes into
play. Unfortunately, the grievor appears to have developed something of a
pattern of booking rest and booking sick as a form of protest to the Company.
It is less than clear to the Arbitrator that in fact the grievor could not have
worked as scheduled.
I am compelled
to conclude that she did abandon her work assignment, and did so without
justification. The grievance is therefore denied.
February 26, 2010
(signed)
MICHEL G. PICHER
ARBITRATOR