CROA CR4030-2S

Year: 2011

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE

N/A

Arbitrator: MICHEL G. PICHER

Note

Note

Decision Text (Preview)

CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION

& DISPUTE RESOLUTION

2ND SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD TO

CASE NO. 4030

Heard in Montreal, Thursday, 16 February 2012

Concerning

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

And

TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE

MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

M. Shannon – Counsel, Calgary

M. Moran – Manager, Labour Relations, Calgary

Dr. G. Lambros – Chief Medical Office, Calgary

L. Trueman – Director, OHS, Calgary

P. Wadja – General Manager, Human Resources Planning & Development

G. Wilson – Vice-President, Safety, Environmental and Regulatory, Calgary

M. Chernenkoff – Labour Relations Officer, Calgary

There appeared on behalf of the Union:

Wm. Brehl – President, Ottawa

D. Brown – Legal Counsel, Ottawa

A. R. Terry – Vice-President, Ottawa

2ND SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

By decision herein dated July 21, 2011, the Arbitrator directed that the grievor be

reinstated into his employment. That reinstatement was subsequently delayed. The

parties again appeared before this Office on September 13, 2011 to resolve an issue of

the process by which the grievor would be reinstated. They then made a written

2nd SUPP 4030

– 2 –

agreement whereby it was understood that the grievor would not be required to meet

with an addiction professional as a condition of his return to duty. It appears that that

condition was challenged by the Company’s Occupational Health and Safety branch.

That resulted in a further hearing on November 10, 2011 and a supplementary award

herein whereby the Arbitrator directed compensation to the grievor and overruled the

Company’s objection to proceeding with the grievor’s reinstatement. In that award,

however, I commented, in part: “For reasons it best appreciates, the Company agreed

to that exception, albeit the grievor, like any employee being reinstated, is obviously

subject to the normal physical examinations and clearances which would otherwise

apply.”

The matter is therefore now returned for further consideration by reason of the

Company’s handling of the grievor’s reinstatement and its ultimate decision to return

him to work in a safety sensitive position, albeit with the restriction that he not perform

certain safety sensitive duties. The record reflects that in fact Mr. Lovett was

compensated by the Company at Group 1 machine operators’ rates between August 8

and December 9, 2011 and that he was returned to active duty on December 12, 2011.

The Union now objects to the fact that the grievor has not been restored to safety

sensitive duties. By way of remedy it requests that the Arbitrator remove the non-safety

sensitive restriction placed upon the grievor and that he be allowed to exercise his

seniority without any limitations.

2nd SUPP 4030

– 3 –

The Arbitrator cannot accede to the Union’s request. The grievor’s return to work

medical review confirmed that the grievor in fact suffers a number of serious conditions

which impact the scope of work which he is able to perform. Among the medical

conditions identified is hypertension, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease (COPD), a history of right heart failure, hypercholesterolemia, Type II diabetes

and morbid obesity. Of substantial concern is the impact of COPD, which reduces the

grievor’s ability to oxygenate and which could affect his ability to perform safety

sensitive duties.

I am compelled to agree with the Company that the grievor’s medical condition

confirms the value of conducting a functional ability evaluation, and that pending a more

complete appreciation of his medical picture it was appropriate for the Company to

return the grievor to work which does not involve safety sensitive duties, albeit he

remains paid at the level of a safety sensitive position. In my view the evidence before

me does not confirm that the Company was dilatorious in handling the grievor’s

reinstatement and the medical information which came to its attention. In the

circumstances I do not consider it appropriate to conclude that the Company has not

complied with the directions of this Office or to order any further remedial relief.

February 20, 2012 _______________________________

MICHEL G. PICHER

ARBITRATOR