CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION

& DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CASE NO. 4034

Heard in Montreal, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 Concerning

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY

And

THE NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION

AND GENERAL WORKERS’ UNION OF CANADA (CAW-CANADA)

DISPUTE:

The assessment of 20 demerits to Equipment Operator P. Korchinski for failure to meet CN productivity expectations on September 8, 2010, specifically extending his scheduled break times. JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On September 12, 2010 an investigation was conducted with Equipment Operator P. Korchinski for failure to meet CN productivity expectations on September 8, 2010, specifically extending scheduled break times. Following the investigation, Equipment Operator P. Korchinski was assessed 20 demerits for the infraction. The Union contends that the discipline assessed for the infraction was excessive and requests that it be removed from the grievor’s record. The Company disagrees with the Union’s contentions and has declined the Union’s grievance. FOR THE UNION: FOR THE COMPANY: (SGD.) R. FITZGERALD (SGD.) S. PRUDAMES NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE LABOUR RELATIONS OFFICER There appeared on behalf of the Company: S. Prudames – Labour Relations Officer, Toronto Wm. Perry – Sr. Terminal Coordinator, Brampton G. Robson – Sr. Terminal Coordinator, Brampton There appeared on behalf of the Union: R. Fitzgerald – National Representative, Toronto J. Almdal – Regional Representative, Toronto D. Andru – Regional Representative, Toronto P. Korchinski – Grievor

CROA&DR 4034

• 2 –

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

The material establishes, to the Arbitrator’s satisfaction, that the grievor did in

fact engage in conduct which violated productivity expectations on September 8, 2010.

It does not appear disputed that he took an extended lunch break which lasted some

fifty minutes beyond his scheduled time to return to work.

The grievor offers the explanation that there was then an insufficient number of

vehicles to allow him to work. The record confirms, however, that he made no attempt to

convey his situation to either a supervisor or a lead hand, notwithstanding that he was in

close proximity to both of those persons on some two occasions while he was in the

lunch room. It does appear that on one occasion prior to being discovered in the lunch

room he had gone to the garage to see whether a tractor might be available or a

possible pairing for him to work as a groundsman. It appears that there was none, and it

was shortly after that that he was encountered by Sr. Terminal Coordinator William

Perry.

The grievor’s prior disciplinary record involves several instances of discipline for

insufficient productivity. In the circumstances I could not conclude that the assessment

of twenty demerits was inappropriate. However, given the mitigating factor of certain of

the grievor’s personal circumstances, touched upon in the award CROA&DR 4035 , I am

satisfied that a substitution of penalty is appropriate. I therefore direct that the twenty

demerits assessed against the grievor be removed from his record and that the period

between his termination and reinstatement be recorded as a suspension for his failure

CROA&DR 4034

• 3 –

to meet productivity standards, as well as for his violation of the cell rule dealt with in

CROA&DR 4035.

September 22, 2011 (signed) MICHEL G. PICHER

ARBITRATOR