The arbitrator found that the Grievor, a long-service employee with CPKC, engaged in misconduct during a safety briefing when he reacted angrily to the company's decision to eliminate the longstanding morning break. The arbitrator accepted that the Grievor likely told his supervisor to “fuck off” and stated that management did nothing for employees- conduct that was disrespectful and warranted discipline. However, the arbitrator concluded that his comments were an emotional outburst made in the context of a contentious meeting rather than harassment or intimidation.

In assessing the appropriateness of the dismissal, the arbitrator considered several mitigating factors, including the Grievor's lengthy service, health issues, workplace stress, and his perception that he was being unfairly targeted by management. The evidence also showed that many employees were upset about the removal of the break, although the Grievor was the only employee disciplined. The arbitrator determined that discharge was an excessive penalty and substituted the dismissal with a five-day suspension and ordered the Grievor's immediate reinstatement.

As Mechanical employee from Weston Shops was assessed 20 demerits after failing to attend a scheduled disciplinary investigation. The Grievor called the Company on the day of the meeting and advised that he was sick and unable to attend. During a subsequent investigation, he explained that he was experiencing significant anxiety, sleep problems, and other health concerns, which he believed were being aggravated by his workplace environment and interactions with certain supervisors. The Company concluded that his absence was culpable and disciplined him for failing to attend the investigation.

The Union argued that the Grievor had complied with the collective agreement by properly reporting his illness and that the Company failed to establish that his absence was misconduct. It maintained that if the Company doubted the legitimacy of his illness, it should have requested medical documentation or made further inquiries. The Company, on the other hand, argued that the Grievor's explanations were not credible, were unsupported by medical evidence, and did not justify missing a properly scheduled investigation.

The arbitrator allowed the Union's grievance and concluded that the Grievor had fulfilled his obligations by notifying the Company that he was sick and that, once he raised medical and mental health concerns, the Company had a duty to investigate those concerns further if it questioned their validity. Because the Company did not seek additional medical information before imposing discipline, it failed to establish just cause. As a result, the grievance was upheld and the discipline removed.

The grievance concerned whether the 15 demerits assessed against the Grievor for smoking in a non-designated area while not on an authorized break were excessive.

The Union accepted that some discipline was justified but argued that the penalty was too severe and punitive rather than corrective. It emphasized several mitigating factors, including the Grievor’s honesty, length of service, generally good disciplinary record, and the relatively minor nature of the violation. The Union maintained that coaching or a lesser corrective measure would have been more appropriate.

After applying the William Scott test, the arbitrator found that the Grievor knowingly violated a clear workplace policy and either knew or should have known that smoking was only allowed in designated areas and during designated breaks. The arbitrator concluded that the Company acted reasonably in imposing 15 demerits and that the penalty was appropriate in the circumstances and dismissed the grievance.

The grievance concerned a mechanical employee from Weston Shops who received 15 demerit points for violating the Employer’s Attendance Management Policy after being absent for a total of 44.25 hours between August and October 2019. During the investigation, the Grievor consistently explained that most of his absences were due to stress, anxiety, and mental health issues, although he had not provided medical documentation to support those absences. The Employer argued that the pattern of absences, many of which occurred adjacent to weekends or holidays, justified discipline and that the Grievor had failed to provide adequate medical evidence despite claiming to be under a doctor’s care.

The Union maintained that the absences were medically related and therefore non-culpable. It argued the Grievor had informed the Employer of his mental health condition, complied with the collective agreement’s requirement to report absences, and indicated that he was receiving treatment from his physician. The Union further contended that once the Employer became aware of a potential medical issue, it had a duty to make further inquiries or request supporting documentation rather than presume misconduct.

The arbitrator found that the Grievor was suffering from legitimate medical conditions and that the Employer had enough information to trigger a duty to inquire further into his circumstances. By failing to seek additional medical information or clarification after the Grievor raised his health concerns, the Employer did not adequately investigate whether the absences were medically justified. As a result, the arbitrator concluded that discipline was not warranted, granted the grievance, and ordered the removal of the 15 demerit points from the Grievor’s record.

*Please note that this award contains both the French and English versions. The French version is the original text; the English version follows for reference purposes.

The arbitrator upheld the Company's decision to require post-incident drug and alcohol testing and ultimately dismissed the Union's grievance. Although the accident involved only a company vehicle striking a concrete pillar during a backing maneuver, the arbitrator found it was more than a minor incident because the vehicle sustained significant damage and the Grievor admitted he failed to follow CN’s mandatory backing procedures. The arbitrator concluded that CN conducted a reasonable investigation before ordering the test and that testing was justified to help determine whether impairment may have contributed to the accident. As a result, the positive cannabis test result was admissible and could be relied upon in assessing discipline.

On the question of impairment, the arbitrator accepted established railway arbitration jurisprudence that an oral fluid cannabis result of 10 ng/mL supports an inference that the employee was working while impaired. While the Union argued that there were no observable signs of impairment and that the test result alone did not prove impairment, the arbitrator found that previous arbitral decisions have consistently treated the 10 ng/mL threshold as indicative of recent cannabis use during a period associated with impairment. The arbitrator was not persuaded by the Grievor's testimony that he was not impaired and noted inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his cannabis consumption.

In considering the penalty, the arbitrator acknowledged several mitigating factors, including the Grievor's previously clean disciplinary record, cooperation during the investigation, and relatively short service history. However, the arbitrator emphasized the serious safety risks associated with operating a vehicle while impaired and noted that dismissal is generally presumed to be the appropriate penalty in such cases. Given the positive test result, the vehicle accident, the breach of safety procedures, and concerns about the reliability of the Grievor's evidence regarding his cannabis use, the arbitrator declined to substitute a lesser penalty and upheld the termination.