CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION

& DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CASE NO. 3810

Heard in Montreal, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 Concerning

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY

and

TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE

RAIL CANADA TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

DISPUTE:

Mr. M. McCracken concerning a written reprimand issued for “reported late for duty on April 2, 2009, resulting in not properly protecting your assignment and in overtime costs incurred by the Company.” JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Mr. McCracken was 30 minutes late for work on April 2, 2009. As a result of his late reporting the Company incurred overtime costs for the individual who was required to protect his deck. The Company subsequently assessed a written reprimand to Mr. McCracken. The Union contends that the Company is in violation of article 25.2 and assessing excessive discipline. The Company denies the Union’s contentions and declines the Union’s claims. FOR THE UNION: FOR THE COMPANY: (SGD.) J. RUDDICK (SGD.) S. M. BLACKMORE GENERAL CHAIRMAN MANAGER, LABOUR RELATIONS There appeared on behalf of the Company: S. M. Blackmore – Manager, Labour Relations, Edmonton D. S. Fisher – Director, Labour Relations, Montreal G. Séguin – General Superintendent, Operations, Toronto P. Lavoie – Manager, Operations, Toronto And on behalf of the Union: J. Ruddick – General Chairman, Toronto D. Shanahan – Vice-Local Chairman, Toronto

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

It is not disputed that the grievor was a half hour late for work on April 2,

2009. As a result of his being late the Company was required to incur overtime to

cover the period of his absence. The unchallenged assertion of the grievor is that

this was the first time that he had been ever been late in the entire period of his

employment, dating back to April of 1998.

While a written reprimand is the lightest form of discipline under the Brown

System it is nevertheless discipline which remains on an employee’s record.

While the Arbitrator can understand the Employer’s displeasure at the grievor

coming to work late, apparently by reason of a failure in his Blackberry alarm

system, it is less than clear that the situation, apparently a first offence, could not

fairly have been dealt with by counselling or some other form of response short

of formal discipline, particularly in light of the grievor’s positive record in respect

of attendance and time keeping over a substantial number of years.

For the foregoing reasons the grievance is allowed. The Arbitrator directs

that the reprimand registered against Mr. McCracken be removed from his

record.

October 29, 2009 (original signed by) MICHEL G. PICHER

ARBITRATOR