CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
CASE NO. 1286
Heard at Montreal, Wednesday, October 10, 1984
Concerning
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY
and
CANADIAN BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY
TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS
DISPUTE:
Appeal of discipline assessed Mr. G. E. O'Brien of Vancouver, B.C.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On 2 August 1983 Mr. O'Brien operated a tow motor during the performance of his duties as a Stores Attendant
- A Company supervisor observed Mr. O'Brien and questioned him on his manner of operating the tow motor.
After an investigation was held on 12 September 1983 the Company restricted Mr. O'Brien from operating a
Company vehicle including fork lifts for eight months commencing 19 September 1983. The Brotherhood contends
that the assessment of discipline was unwarranted and requests removal of the discipline and requests payment of the
loss of earnings sustained by Mr. O'Brien while he was restricted by the Company. The Company has declined to
remove this disciplinary restriction.
FOR THE BROTHERHOOD: FOR THE COMPANY:
(SGD.) TOM MCGRATH (SGD.) J. R. GILMAN
NATIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT FOR: ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT, LABOUR RELATIONS.
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
W. W. Wilson – System Manager Labour Relations, Montreal
S. A. MacDougald – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal
M. Farmer – Manager Employee Relations, CM&M, Montreal
L. E. Provencal – Purchases & Materials Officer, Vancouver
M. M. West – Shop Foreman, M.P., Surrey
And on behalf of the Brotherhood:
J. A. Craig – Regional Vice-President, Vancouver
[REPRINTED 3/12/2014] 2 CR1286_20B87A0.DOC
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
At approximately 1000 hours on August 2, 1983, Mr. M. M. West Acting General Foreman, Thornton Yard
Diesel Shop, observed the grievor, Mr. G. E. O'Brien operate his fork lift truck "in a reckless and damaging manner".
When Mr. West confronted the grievor with his inappropriate treatment of a Company vehicle he reacted by
saying:
If they (his colleagues) expected him to be fast, he would indeed be fast and "F ***
them all".
It is unnecessary for me to detail the manner in which the grievor was observed to have been abusing his fork lift
truck. It suffices to say that the grievor denied the Company's allegation but offered no explanation as to why Mr.
West would report the incident if his improper behavior did not transpire. Indeed, the statement attributed to the
grievor at the time he was confronted by Mr. West is sufficiently inculpatory to remove any doubt that he committed
the infraction for which he had been disciplined.
The only substantial issue raised in this case is whether the Company's penalty was just and reasonable. The
Company initially assessed the grievor 10 demerit marks and restricted him from operating Company vehicles for a
period of eight months. As a result the number of jobs for which the grievor could bid was drastically reduced.
During the grievance procedure the Company acceded to the Trade Union's request to remove the ten demerit
marks from the grievor's record. The Company maintained a steadfast position that the eight month restriction on the
use of Company vehicles should remain.
In having regard to the purpose that is served by the imposition of such temporary restriction on the operation of
the Company vehicle I cannot conclude that the Company's decision should be upset. That is to say, if the objective
of emphasizing that an appropriate standard of care be exhibited by the grievor in the use of a Company vehicle then
Mr. O'Brien cannot help but have profited from the Company's action. For all the foregoing reasons the grievance is
rejected.
(signed) DAVID H. KATES
ARBITRATOR