CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION

& DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CASE NO. 4332

Heard in Montreal, July 10, 2014 Concerning

VIA RAIL CANADA INC.

And

UNIFOR

DISPUTE:

Discharge of Ms. V.B. alleged irregular time reporting as well as time theft from July, 2013 until the present and also for alleged breach of security at the Toronto Maintenance Centre for the same period. JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE: It is the Union contention that discipline in this case is unwarranted, excessive and that the Corporation is in violation of Article 24.1, 24.2, 24.5, 27.12 of the collective agreement #1 and Section 5(3) of the Personal and Electronics as well as Section 4.2 4.8 and 4.9 The Union requests immediate reinstatement of Ms. V.B. with full seniority; and reimburse her of any and all lost wages and benefits in a make whole fashion. The Corporation disagrees with the Union and denied the grievance. FOR THE UNION: FOR THE COMPANY: (SGD.) R. Fitzgerald (SGD.) National Representative There appeared on behalf of the Company: M. Boyer – Senior Advisor, Labour Relations, Montreal B. Blair – Senior Advisor, Labour Relations, Montreal L. Calhau – Senior Manager Customer Experience, Toronto L. Selesnic – Manager Customer Experience, Toronto M. Martens – Senior Advisor Employee Relations, Montreal S. Centoni – Student, Labour Relations, Montreal There appeared on behalf of the Union: R. Fitzgerald – National Representative, Toronto D. Andru – Regional Representative, Toronto V. B. – Grievor, Toronto J. L. – Observer, Toronto N. B. – Observer, Toronto

CROA&DR 4332

• 2 –

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

The facts and issues relating to this grievance were thoroughly reviewed in

CROA&DR 4330. In respect of the grievor VB, however, a significant point of distinction

arises. While it is obviously unfortunate that this employee has been found to be

involved in a form of time theft, it would appear that that conduct is not unprecedented

in her employment record. The unchallenged representation of the Corporation is that in

2008 VB committed a similar type of offence by then falsifying the sign-in an sign-out

sheet to effectively claim a full day of work when in fact she was absent. While the

grievor was, as the Corporation relates, “given a chance” in 2008, when it appears ten

demerit marks were assessed against her for that incident, there is an element of

recidivism in the instant matter which the Arbitrator simply cannot disregard. The theft of

time is obviously a serious infraction. It becomes the more so where, as in the case of

the instant grievor it is shown to be a repeat offence, notwithstanding the administration

of prior discipline.

The Arbitrator is therefore compelled to conclusion that the circumstances of the

instant grievor differ from those of the employees considered in CROA&DR 4330 and

4331, and I am compelled to the regrettable conclusion that this grievance must be

dismissed.

July 14, 2014 _______________________________

MICHEL G. PICHER

ARBITRATOR