CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION

& DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CASE NO. 3857

Heard in Montreal, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 Concerning

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY

and

TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE

DISPUTE:

Assessment of 25 demerits to Conductor R. Savary for her “Failure to comply with Company AMS Standards from 19 July to 31 August 2006”. JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On November 19, 2006, Conductor Savary was required to attend a Company investigation in connection with the circumstances surrounding “alleged failure to comply with Company AMS Standards 19 July to 31 August, 2006”. Conductor Savary, subsequent to the investigation, was assessed 25 demerits. It is the Union’s position that the discipline assessed, in consideration of all the factors relating to this matter is unfounded and 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

CROA&DR 3857

• 2 –

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

The evidence reveals that over the six week period under investigation the

grievor worked only twenty of a possible thirty days, recoding a 33.3% rate of

absenteeism. She engaged in what appears to have been a pattern of booking rest

causing her to miss her split shift assignments, frequently on Fridays and Mondays,

although other days were also involved.

As noted in CROA&DR 3856 , as a general rule the right to book rest is

unqualified. Where, however, the pattern of booking rest appears to reveal something

more than the need for rest, namely to fashion a work schedule deemed more suitable

by the employee, an unacceptable abuse of booking rest is disclosed. That, I am

satisfied, is demonstrated in the case at hand. Nor am I persuaded that there was, as

the Union alleges, undue delay in conducting the investigation. It would appear that the

investigation was delayed, in substantial part, by the lengthy absence of the grievor

from September 7 to November 15, 2006.

On the whole, I am satisfied that the Company has demonstrated that the grievor

did book rest in a manner which was effectively abusive and inconsistent with her

obligation of faithful attendance at work in accordance with her work schedule. The

grievance is therefore dismissed.

February 26, 2010 (signed) MICHEL G. PICHER

ARBITRATOR