Arbitrator: Vincent L. Ready
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC KANSAS CITY RAILWAY COMPANY
BETWEEN:
(the “Company” or the “Employer”)
UNIFOR, LOCAL 101-R
AND:
(the “Union”)
(Grievance Numbers:
Joel Kennedy
for the Union
The parties agreed I was properly constituted as an arbitrator under the
At issue are four disciplinary grievances issued to Mr. Shawn White, the
The parties appeared before me on April 14, 2026, at Richmond, British
The Union is the certified bargaining agent for approximately 1,250
The grievor commenced his employment with the Company on January
The grievor at the material time of the grievances was employed as a
The Employer requested the grievor attend an investigation into his
The notes of the formal investigation procedure at questions 10 to 25
Q10. Please provide an explanation for your Absenteeism of 8
hours on August 19, 2019.
A10. Stressed out/sick mental issues and anxiety it is all one
thing.
SHP 752 – W-63-2019/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00012006 – Shawn White;
SHP 753 – W-192-2020/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00017413 – Shawn White;
SHP 754 – W-191-2020 0/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00017414 – Shawn White;
and SHP 755 – W-175-2020/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00016813 – Shawn White)
ARBITRATOR: Vincent L. Ready
COUNSEL: Simone Scott
for the Employer
HEARING: April 14, 2026
Richmond, BC
DECISION: July 9, 2026
33953
2
terms and provisions of the Collective Agreement with the requisite jurisdiction
to hear and determine the matters in dispute.
grievor.
Columbia and presented evidence and submissions regarding all four
grievances.
BACKGROUND
shopcraft employees working at its mechanical facilities across Canada.
5, 2005.
trades Helper at the Company’s Weston Shops located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The evidence is that he spent most of his career working in the Wheel Shop as
a forklift operator.
SHP 752 – W-63-2019/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00012006
15 Demerits for Absenteeism
attendance at work on various dates.
3
reveal the following:
Q11. Did you provide Documentation to support this claim?
A11. No.
Union Objects: based on Canada Labour Code section 239,
did the company request in writing within 15 days after his
return to work for a note from the doctor.
Q12. Please provide an explanation for your absenteeism of 8
hours on September 19, 2019.
A12. Stressed out/sick mental issues an anxiety it is all one
thing.
Q13. Did you provide Documentation to support this claim?
A13. No.
Union Objects: based on Canada Labour Code section 239,
did the company request in writing within 15 days after his
return to work for a note from the doctor.
Q14. Please provide an explanation for your absenteeism of 8
hours on September 20, 2019.
A14. Stressed out/sick mental issues and anxiety it is all one
thing.
Q15. Did you provide Documentation to support this claim?
A15. No.
Union Objects: based on Canada Labour Code section 239,
did the company request in writing within 15 days after his
return to work for a note from the doctor.
Q16. Please provide an explanation for your absenteeism of 8
hours on September 30, 2019.
A16. Stressed out/sick mental issues and anxiety it is all one
thing.
Q17. Did you provide Documentation to support this claim?
A17. No.
Union Objects: based on Canada Labour Code section 239,
did the company request in writing within 15 days after his
return to work for a note from the doctor.
Union Objects: based on Canada Labour Code section 239,
did the company request in writing within 15 days after his
return to work for a note from the doctor.
Union Objects: based on Canada Labour Code section 239,
did the company request in writing within 15 days after his
return to work for a note from the doctor.
A25. Yes a FAF form and future doctor’s note for my next
statement stating the same thing.
4
Q18. Please provide an explanation for your absenteeism of 8
hours on October 11, 2019.
A18. Stressed out/sick mental issues and anxiety it is all one
thing.
Q19. Did you provide Documentation to support this claim?
A19. No.
Q20. Please provide an explanation for your absenteeism of 8
hours on October 21, 2019.
A20. Stressed out/sick mental issues and anxiety it is all one
thing.
Q21. Did you provide Documentation to support this claim?
A21. No.
Q22. Please provide an explanation for your absenteeism of 2.5
hours on October 23, 2019.
A22. Left the house late.
Q23. Are you aware CP has an Employee Family Assistance
Program that is open to all Employees for assistance and is
confidential.
A23. Not really know, I have only seen pamphlets years ago.
Q24. Have you ever asked your Manager or Local Union about
Personal services provided to employees through EFAP?
A24. No I have not, but it does not mean I am not seeking help, I
was unaware of this service but am seeking help through my
personal doctor, the company is going against what my
doctor said to take days off when needed, I have bad days.
Q25. Have you provided CP with documents to support these
personal issues?
5
Following the investigatory meeting, on December 9, 2019, the grievor
The letter of discipline reads as follows:
was issued discipline of 15 demerit points in connection with his absenteeism
from work for the period of August, September and October 2019.
Following the fair and impartial investigation conducted November
25, 2019, you are hereby advised that you have been issued fifteen
(15) demerits for the following reason(s):
Violation of the Attendance Management Policy for Mechanical
Employees, specifically:
• Your absenteeism from the work place between August 1 and
October 31, 2019 totaling 44.25 hours.
Both parties in arguing their respective cases relied on the principles
First, does the grievor’s conduct give rise to some form of
discipline?
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
enunciated in Wm. Scott and Co. Ltd. and Canadian Food & Allied Workers
Union, Local P-162, [1977] 1 Can.L.R.B.R. (“William Scott”), which requires
arbitrators to pose and answer the following three questions:
Second, if the answer is “yes”, was the discipline issued excessive,
having regard to all of the circumstances surrounding the
situation.
Third, if the answer to question 2 is “yes”, then what measure of
discipline should be substituted as just and reasonable?
The Employer asserts it has met the first test in William Scott, supra,
In support of its position, the Employer underlines the fact that the
The Employer points to the necessity and importance of regular
Punctuality and regular attendance are essential attributes of all
employment relationships. Employees who are unable or unwilling
to report for work on time and as scheduled risk being disciplined
by their employers.
6
pointing to the patterns of the grievor’s absenteeism. It emphasizes these
absences were immediately preceding or following his rest days which were
Saturdays and Sundays, including October 11, 2019 which led into the
Thanksgiving long weekend.
grievor at no time offered any medical documentation to support his illness,
notwithstanding his claim that he was attending visits with his doctor due to
his medical condition.
attendance and at work, citing Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration,
5th Edition § 7:16 as follows:
The Employer also asserts at paragraph 18 of its brief the following:
It should be noted that during his statement, the Grievor
references providing the Company with a Functional Abilities Form
(FAF) and claims that the Company is “going against what his
doctor said” (Q&A 23 & 24). This is not accurate. The Company
records disclose that the Grievor was temporarily off work from
August 30, 2019 to September 3, 2019, and was cleared to return
to his role “fit full” on September 4, 2019. Had his treating
physician advised the Company he needed additional or prolonged
days off or a gradual return to work, the restrictions would have
been indicated on his FAF. A plain read of the FAF, demonstrates
no such restrictions.
(emphasis in original)
In further support of its position, the Employer relies on the finding of
It was plainly incumbent upon the employee to obtain proper
medical certificates, and to bring those to the attention of the
Company during the course of the disciplinary investigation into
his recurring absenteeism.
7
Arbitrator Picher in CROA 2845 wherein the learned Arbitrator stated:
In sum, the Employer asserts it has established grounds for discipline
For its part, the Union asserts the Employer has failed to establish clear
In short, the Union argues the grievor made the Company aware of his
In that regard, the Union relies on the findings of Arbitrator Picher in
In CROA 2245 the Arbitrator commented as follows:
and the discipline imposed was, in all of the circumstances, within the range of
reasonability and the grievance should accordingly be dismissed.
and convincing evidence and any culpability on the part of the grievor in this
case – specifically, that his absenteeism resulted from misconduct or otherwise
– constituted deviant behaviour.
medical conditions and that the Company failed to request supporting
documentation. In other words, the Employer failed to follow up to determine if
there were underlying causes for the grievor’s absenteeism after being made
aware of the grievor’s medical condition during the investigation referred to
above.
SHP 569, where he quoted an earlier decision:
The Canadian law of arbitration has long recognized that an
employer is entitled to treat absenteeism and lateness in either a
disciplinary or non-disciplinary fashion. If it is of the view that
an employee’s absenteeism is occasioned by his or her failure to
act responsibly in matters which are within the employee’s
control, a disciplinary response may be appropriate….
…
8
…The Corporation has a legitimate interest in recording an
employee’s attendance record and, even if it chooses to treat it
as non-culpable, of ensuring that the employee is aware of his
or her record in that regard. That approach serves the proper
business purpose of the Corporation in ensuring, insofar as
possible, that the fundamental obligations of an individual’s
contract of employment will be fulfilled while, on the other
hand, protecting the interests of the employee, who might
otherwise be left unaware of the jeopardy which recurring
innocent absenteeism and lateness might occasion for his or
her ongoing employment relationship.
In further support of its position, the Union points to the undisputed fact
RULE 16 ABSENCE FROM WORK
the grievor did comply with Rule 16.1 of the Collective Agreement which states:
16.1 In case an employee is unavoidably kept from work he will
not be discriminated against. An employee detained from
work on account of sickness or for any other good cause
must, if possible, advise the Supervisor prior to the
commencement of his/her shift. Should an employee be
required to leave work prior to the end of his/her shift,
permission shall not be unreasonably denied.
In addition to complying with Rule 16.1, the Union asserts the grievor
For the above reasons, the Union asserts the discipline should be set
The first issue to be determined in this case is whether the grievor
When the evidence is considered as a whole, I find the grievor
Following the findings in SHP 569 and others, I find the failure of the
In the result, the grievance is granted. I order the 15 demerit points be
It is so awarded.
This case concerns a grievance filed by the Union alleging the discipline
The grievor’s background is set out in SHP752 above, so it is
The discipline arises from the admitted fact that the grievor was smoking
The position of the Company is that it relied on the grievor’s previous
Smoking is prohibited on Company property unless management
has designated an outdoor smoking area. Managers may only
designate an outdoor smoking area that is not otherwise restricted
for safety reasons.
did advise his Employer he was under a doctor’s care in an attempt to treat his
“ongoing mental health issues”.
aside.
DECISION SHP 752
suffered from an illness that would justify his absences.
9
unfortunately did suffer from medical conditions and while it may be true, the
grievor perhaps should have made better attempts to establish his medical
circumstances. There was enough available information provided to the
Employer to gives rise to a duty to enquire about the grievor’s medical
condition. It did not do so.
Employer to enquire into the grievor’s medical condition provides a sufficient
basis to set aside the discipline. It will be recalled that the grievor was clear at
the investigation that he was suffering from a medical condition, yet no request
was made by the Employer for the grievor to provide further medical or any
confirmation from his doctor. Further, I find he followed the provisions of Rule
16.1.
removed from the grievor’s record.
SHP 753 – W-192-2020/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00017413
15 DEMERITS – VIOLATION OF SMOKING POLICY
meted out to Mr. Shawn White, the grievor, on July 22, 2020 was excessive.
BACKGROUND
unnecessary to repeat it here.
10
in a non-designated smoke area while not on a designated break. He was
issued discipline of 15 demerit points for this infraction under the Company’s
hybrid discipline system.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
discipline record as well as its well-known and published “No-Smoking Policy
1600” which states that:
In the submission of the Employer, the smoking policy was reinforced to
In accordance with the policy SMOKING IS ONLY PERMITTED IN
THE DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS that have been identified
and appropriately marked across the property.
employees in a memo dated December 11, 2017 as follows:
(emphasis included in the original text)
The Company states that it categorized the grievor’s conduct as a “non-
For its part, the Union concedes the Employer has established cause for
Specifically, the Union alleges the penalty imposed was punitive as
The Union asserts the foregoing mitigating factors made the grievor a
Both parties relied on the three-part test in William Scott, supra, in this
As noted, the grievor acknowledged he was smoking in a non-smoking
All things considered, I find it was not unreasonable for the Employer to
It is so awarded.
This case concerns a grievance filed by the Union on behalf of Mr. Shawn
It falls on the heels of the grievance matters dealt with in the previous
The investigation was scheduled for June 29, 2020. On the date
As the Employer stated at paragraph 11 of its submission:
major offense” and, in issuing the discipline, took into consideration the
grievor’s formal discipline record which it argues, consisted of a formal
reprimand and 15 active demerit points on record, both for attendance
violations. Hence it was justified in issuing the 15 demerit discipline.
discipline, but argues the penalty was excessive in all the circumstances.
11
opposed to being corrective in nature. As well, it asserts the Employer
unreasonably exercised its management rights to discipline given the minor
nature of the offense, coupled with the grievor’s candour, lengthy service and
virtually unblemished disciplinary record.
perfect candidate for corrective coaching rather than the discipline issued.
DECISION SHP 753
matter, as well as the following two cases of discipline – SHP 764 and SHP 765,
which require arbitration boards in assessing discipline cases to apply the
three-part test set out earlier in this award.
area while not on a break. In the result, the answer to the first question is in
the affirmative. That leaves the second and third questions to be determined.
issue the grievor 15 demerits for this infraction. The grievor knew or ought to
have known that he was only permitted to smoke during designated breaks.
Despite that knowledge, he knowingly breached the Employer’s policy. In the
circumstances, I find the quantum of discipline appropriate and deny the
grievance.
12
SHP 754 – W-191-2020 0/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00017414
20 Demerits – Failure to attend investigation
White, the grievor.
case (SHP 753). In short, the grievor was scheduled for an investigation
meeting resulting from the smoking breach set out in the previous case above.
scheduled, the grievor phoned the Company and stated, “I’ll be staying home
today I’m sick”.
The Grievor’s decision to absent himself from the workplace while
subject to a properly scheduled investigation was concerning and
warranting of further questioning. As such, in addition to
rescheduling his smoking investigation, the Grievor was also
notified of a second investigation for his attendance and failure to
appear.
The grievor attended the second investigation on July 2, 2020.
It is clearly evident from the notes of the investigation, which were
My nerves were shot, the investigations were bothering me, and the
atmosphere in the wheel shop, being picked on doesn’t allow me to
sleep right, and I have documented information stating my current
health condition.
Again, at paragraph 19 of the Employer’s submission, the investigation
24. Is there anything else that you would like to add for this
statement?
A. Yes, my anxieties are becoming overwhelming. I am not
sleeping right, eating right, and Todd and Rui are big parts
of my anxieties and health issues. It’s to the point that when
I see Todd’s truck in the parking lot that I feel sick to my
stomach. I do not like the man. I think that he is creating an
environment of hate, rather than one of family, solidarity and
trust. I’m at the point where he is creating problems that
make us all nervous that compromises the safety for the job
that we are doing.
tendered as evidence, that the grievor made clear his reasons for not attending
the previous investigation as follows:
13
record reveals the following and point No. 24:
In the end, the Employer made the decision to issue discipline
The position of the Employer is that:
determining that the grievor’s failure to attend the initial investigation meeting
on June 29 was culpable and warranting of a disciplinary response.
1. His short service, work history, and his past disciplinary record
established culpability sufficient to mete out discipline.
2. The causal connection between the alleged actions of the grievor’s
manager and his decision not to attend the investigation have not
been established and is simply not credible.
3. The grievor provided no documentation supporting his absence as
being anything other than retaliatory, therefore, having issued 15
demerits for the smoking incident, the issuance of 20 demerit
points in these circumstances was justified.
4. If the grievor had concerns regarding his relationship with
management, he had legitimate venues through which to address
his concerns (including filing a complaint with the Company
Employee Relations Department), rather than absenting himself
from the investigation.
The Employer also submitted:
14
38. In the alternative, if we accept that the Grievor did have
anxiety which prevented him from attending the first
scheduled investigation, why wouldn’t he have raised this
medical issue at some point prior to the investigation that he
actually attended.
39. He did not cite it as a reason for his absence when booking
off and only referenced it during the investigation held on
July 2, 2020. This was a full seven days after the initial
Notice of Investigation was provided.
Finally, in support of its position, the Company relies on CROA 720
The smooth functioning of the investigative procedures
contemplated under the collective agreement is essential to the
orderly processing of discipline with the Company's operations. If
properly pursued it also benefits the employees who are the
subject of the investigation, since the prompt and full disclosure of
all facts and allegations will normally be important to the
preparation of their own case. An orderly investigation procedure
is, moreover, important to the grievance and arbitration process,
which culminates in the reliance of this Office, in substantial part,
on the record of those proceedings. The frustration of the
investigation process, whether by inadvertence, indifference or
design, must therefore be viewed seriously. For these reasons the
Arbitrator finds that the imposition of 20 demerits was within the
appropriate range of disciplinary response, and the grievance must
be dismissed.
(Weatherill) and CROA 1666 (Picher). In the latter award, Arbitrator Picher
stated the following:
The Union takes a much different view of the factual background and
First, the Union says the Company knew, or ought to have known, the
Further, the Union asserts the Company has failed to meet its onus to
In sum, the Union argues there was sufficient evidence provided at the
The Union relies on SHP 569, a case it says has similar facts, wherein
Different, but equally significant, concerns arise with respect to the
three day absence registered by the grievor on February 6 through
8, 2002 when he related to his employer that he was suffering from
the flu. If the Company had concerns about the truth of the
grievor’s assertion concerning his fitness to work, particularly in
light of his prior disciplinary record, it was open to it to then
demand that he produce a medical certificate to substantiate his
three day absence.
circumstances of this case.
grievor suffered an illness and takes issue with the fact that it made no
15
attempt whatsoever to confirm his illness, such as requesting documentation
to support his illness.
establish culpability on the grievor’s part with convincing evidence –
specifically, the Union asserts that the Employer has failed to prove that the
grievor’s absenteeism resulted from misconduct or deviant behaviour.
investigation to establish illness as the grievor’s reasons for not attending the
scheduled investigation and if the Company was in any doubt, it had a duty to
both enquire and, if deemed necessary, require the grievor to provide medical
confirmation of his medical condition. It failed to do so.
Arbitrator Picher found:
Further, the Union relies on CROA 5054 (Arbitrator Cheryl Yingst-
While the Company argued that it would have been reasonable for
the Grievor to seek medical treatment for his sinus infection, it did
not seek or request any medical information or validation of the
Grievor’s sickness when he called in sick. Not having sought that
information at a point in time where it could have been provided, it
cannot rely on its absence at this late date to establish culpability.
The Grievor does not have to demonstrate he was sick. The
Company must demonstrate he was not, to demonstrate his
absence was culpable.
Bartel):
16
Further, the Union asserts the grievor complied with the provisions of
For these reasons the Union requests the grievance be upheld and the
As in the previous case, the test to be applied is that enunciated in
In the present case, my initial focus is on the first question – was there
There is no doubt in the present case that the grievor advised the
As well, the notes of the investigation meeting make it clear the nature of
Second, the grievor, in accordance with Rule 16.1, phoned the Employer
Third, the grievor did attend the second rescheduled investigation
The question then becomes with the information the grievor provided at
In my view, it did. At that point in the investigation, if the Employer had
It is not disputed the grievor followed the provisions of Rule 16.1 of the
For these reasons I find there was no violation of the Collective
I order the 20 demerit points be removed from the grievor’s record.
Rule 16.1.
assessment of 20 demerits be set aside and removed from the grievor’s record
and personal file.
DECISION SHP 754
William Scott, supra.
cause for discipline?
Company on the date of his scheduled investigation meeting of his illness and
that he was therefore unable to attend the meeting.
the grievor’s medical and mental condition and anxiety.
to advise he was sick and unable to attend the initial investigation.
meeting wherein he reiterated his medical concerns.
17
the investigation, did the Company have a duty to enquire about the grievor’s
medical condition?
any doubt, it had every right to seek further medical information from the
grievor (see SHP 569 and CROA 5054 above).
Collective Agreement.
Agreement and the grievance succeeds.
It is so ordered.
This grievance is the fourth in a series of cases concerning Mr. Shawn
As is apparent from reading the previous three cases, the grievor was
Following the fair and impartial investigation conducted July 6,
2020, you are hereby advised that you have been DISMISSED from
company service for the following reason(s):
Your conduct unbecoming a CP employee as displayed through
your inappropriate comment and actions June 25, 2020, at the
Wheel Shop Safe Start towards Supervisor Robert Schirle.
SHP 755 – W-175-2020/CAN-CP-UNIFOR-2020-00016813
Dismissal
White, the grievor.
subjected to three previous disciplinary sanctions just prior to being dismissed
from his employment on July 22, 2020 for the following reasons:
18
Notwithstanding that the above-mentioned incident warranted
dismissal in and of itself, based on your previous discipline history;
this incident also constitutes a culminating incident which
warrants dismissal.
All of which constituted a violation of the following:
1. Violation of the Company Policy CP Code of Business Ethics
– Section 9 – Respectful Workplace
2. Violation of HR 1300 – Discrimination and harassment in
the workplace – Specifically Harassment – unwelcomed
comments.
The Company takes the position that the conduct of the grievor giving
The Union strenuously objects to the Company’s reliance on the doctrine
As I have dealt with the previous disciplinary matters in the three
I say that because this case needs to be decided on its own unique facts
I now turn to the facts of this case.
rise to his dismissal invoked the doctrine of culminating incident.
of culminating incident and argues the grievor’s previous disciplinary record
ought not to have been considered in the assessment of discipline.
previous decisions above, I do not believe it is necessary to dispose of the
parties’ arguments on whether or not there were grounds to rely on the
doctrine of culminating incident which, stated simply, means that an employer
can rely on a grievor’s past conduct in formulating its decision to assess future
discipline.
and circumstances in order to make a determination (applying the principles of
William Scott, supra) as to whether first, if there were grounds for discipline
and whether or not the discipline assessed was appropriate in all the
circumstances.
19
The grievor has been employed with the Employer since January 5,
At the time of the grievor’s dismissal, his previous discipline consisted of
It is of note that three of the previous disciplines were all meted out on
The incident giving rise to the grievor’s dismissal arose on June 25, 2020
It is apparent from the notes of the investigation into this matter which
As well, it is apparent that the grievor was vocal in his response to the
Notwithstanding the Company’s focus on the grievor, it is not evident to
However, it is clear that at one point in the meeting, the grievor did make
The position of the Company was summarized at paragraphs 77-80 as
77. The Company maintains that culpability was established
after a fair and impartial investigation. The Company has
established that the Grievor did in fact loudly interrupt Mr.
Schirle during the morning job briefing and tell him to “fuck
off”. The Grievor’s actions were in violation of the Company’s
Harassment and Discrimination Policy as well as the
Company’s Code of Business conduct.
2005. In that time, he has worked as a Production Worker and operated a
forklift, transporting freight car wheel sets and components to and from
various locations both within and outside the shop.
a letter of caution, dated September 19, 2019 regarding time keeping, as well
as the discipline set out in the three previous case above in this award (15
demerit points – December 9, 2019 for absenteeism; 15 demerit points for a
smoking violation – June 17, 2020; and 20 demerit points for missing work on
the date of the investigation for the smoking incident – which I have ordered
removed from the grievor’s record in the decision above).
July 22, 2020.
at a shop floor briefing conducted by his supervisor, Mr. Robert Schirle, who
advised the crew that the Company was cancelling its longstanding practice of
morning work breaks.
was tendered as evidence, that upon hearing of the morning break
cancellation, the crew were quite upset over the dismantling of the morning
break and the impact it had on working conditions.
20
news, as were other employees. I make that finding after reviewing the evidence
contained in the investigation minutes.
me that any other employee was sanctioned in any manner, yet the
investigation notes indicate there were a lot of concerns expressed by crew
members over the deletion of the morning break.
the comment directed at his supervisor – “You guys don’t do anything for us
any way…”. There is a factual dispute over whether the grievor uttered the
words “fuck off” during his comments.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
follows:
78. Throughout his statement the Grievor responded in ways
that reinforced his disdain and dislike of local management,
while taking no accountability for his actions. Accordingly,
the Grievor’s actions prior to and during the statement,
coupled with his discipline history and recent string of
violations left the Company unable to reconcile his continued
and ongoing employment.
79. In addition to his failure to take any accountability for the
incident, the Grievor also failed to demonstrate any remorse
or apologize for his actions. When considering the
aforementioned factors, the Company maintains the Grievor
was appropriately dismissed as well as dismissed for a
culminating incident.
21
80. While the Company maintains that dismissal was
appropriate in all the circumstances, in the event the
Arbitrator disagrees, the Company respectfully submits the
Doctrine of Laches applies as a result of the Union’s
inaction.
In sum, the Employer urges me to uphold the dismissal.
The Union argues the grievor’s actions in this matter resulted from a
In further support of the grievor’s belief he was being bullied by his
Q55: Is there anything else that you would like to add for this
statement?
pent up frustration developed as a result of his belief he was being picked on
and harassed by his supervisor, which is buttressed by the fact that he
received three rapid fire disciplinary sanctions in such a short period of time
prior to his dismissal, which were handed to him all at once on July 22, 2020 –
the date of dismissal.
supervisor, the Union points to the notes of the investigation at question and
answer #55 as follows:
A55: I feel that Todd is totally attacking me and the consensus in
the shop is that he is a bully. He is toxic and making the
workplace unsafe. I cannot do my work safely with him
around. The morale in the shop is at an all-time low and a
lot of it has to do with the way he and Rui are both running
this operation. People were much happier here when Pat was
around. People actually wanted to work here, as opposed to
today’s current environment. I am concerned about this
uncomfortable work environment because people are being
sent home for the smallest infractions and does not allow us
[to] focus on our jobs properly. I haven’t never been treated
as unfairly as I have by other people [as] I have with Todd.
He should not be in the position that he is.
The Union submits the grievor’s comments at the shop floor briefing
The Union summarized its position in its written submission as follows:
22
amounted to nothing more than an isolated and spontaneous emotional
reaction triggered by the cancellation of the morning break time, and was
further festered due to the turmoil he was experiencing at work, along with the
inherent pressures of the Covid pandemic.
[72] As the evidence shows, the Grievor’s conduct did not violate
any of the Company policies alleged to have been breached.
Notably, Supervisor Rob S[c]hirle confirms this in his own
memorandum, in which he makes no allegation that the
Grievor assaulted him - verbally or physically – nor that he
felt frightened, intimidated, humiliated, or offended by [it]
any time on June 25 or thereafter.
The Union urges me to find there were no grounds for discipline in all of
As stated above, this case falls to be decided under the principles of
With respect to the first question in William Scott, supra, I find the
With respect to the second and third questions of William Scott, supra, it
I am not satisfied the grievor’s comments rise to the level of harassment
The grievor is a long-term employee. His work history points to a
The evidence established the grievor was unfortunately suffering from
The evidence also established he was feeling considerable pressure at
Considering all of the circumstances, I have concluded dismissal was an
In coming to my conclusion, I have considered the fact his supervisor at
In the result, I have substituted the dismissal with a five (5) day
With respect to the issue of remedy, I refer that matter back to the
Further, I direct the grievor to seek medical help to assist him with his
Dated at the City of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia this
_____________________________
Vincent L. Ready
the circumstances of this case and to set the discharge aside and issue an
order making the grievor whole for all losses as a result of his dismissal or, in
the alternative, an order the arbitrator deems appropriate.
DECISION SHP 755
William Scott, supra.
grievor’s conduct in stating “You guys don’t do anything for us anyway…”, and
his utterance of “fuck off” – which I find on a balance of probabilities he likely
did say – was an affront to his supervisor and properly attracts discipline.
is the second question that requires an arbitration board to conduct a
23
searching review of all the surrounding facts and circumstances giving rise to
dismissal.
or intimidation but are appropriately described as an emotional outburst over
the cancellation of the longstanding morning break.
discipline record for absenteeism and smoking in a non-smoking area.
health issues which, on the evidence, I am satisfied contributed to his
behaviour at the material time.
work due to his relationship and perception of his supervisor that is buttressed
by his response during the discipline interview at question and answer #55 (set
out above) where he saw fit to let it all out about how he felt treated at work.
excessive response to the grievor’s actions at the shop floor crew meeting and a
more corrective form of discipline is appropriate.
the material time is no longer with the Company.
suspension and order immediate reinstatement of the grievor back into his
employment.
parties and remain seized to resolve that matter at the request of either party.
24
medical issues in the event those issues continue to affect his employment.
9th day July, 2026.