CROA 0001 - 0499
|
|
Canadian Railway Arbitration Awards
Welcome! On this site, you will find more than 6,400 arbitration awards from the Canadian railway industry, in full text form, from 1965 to date, ready to be searched, viewed and printed out. Use the simple search engine below or the more advanced form. If you need help searching, or have any other questions or comments, click here to email me and I'll be glad to help if I can. - Abe Rosner
NOTE: Until further notice, please use the Advanced Search function.
|
||
| search engine by freefind |
Arbitrators have issued eight more CROA awards (4880, 4881, 4885-9, and 4892) from the November and January hearings (there were no hearings in December). You can find them here.
In Feb. 2023, Arbitrator Graham Clarke issued Ad Hoc 809, ruling on three preliminary objections. He has now issued his award on the merits: Ad Hoc 809-M. Among other things, the award examines what happens when a party raises a new issue for the first time in its arbitration brief; when the employer doesn't deal with some aspect of the merits in its grievance replies; and what the arbitrator can and cannot do when the parties have undertaken to reach an agreement on staffing, but are unable to do so.
You can find decisions from the September, October, November, and January CROA hearings by clicking on this link. Several of the awards are still outstanding - we will fill in the blanks as they become available. There were no hearings in December, and the February awards should be on their way soon.
Arbitrator Cheryl Yingst Bartel heard and decided four CN-TCRC(RTC) disputes, three of them (Ad Hoc 873, Ad Hoc 874, and Ad Hoc 875) relating to CN's relocation of its Rail Traffic Control operation from Montreal to Edmonton in 2019. The fourth case (Ad Hoc 876) deals with the consequences of the company's failure to reply quickly enough to an overtime claim.
In Ad Hoc 866-P, between CP and TCRC-MWED, Arbitrator Graham Clarke ruled on a preliminary objection to the filing of an expert's reply report only 10 days (6 business days) before that expert would testify at arbitration. The report was accepted into evidence, but the previously agreed to schedule for the arbitration had to be changed to manage the prejudice arising from the lack of notice or discussion about this new information.
Arbitrator Cheryl Yingst Bartel heard and decided five CP-TCRC discipline cases leading to the dismissal of a conductor (Ad Hoc 856, Ad Hoc 857, Ad Hoc 858, Ad Hoc 859, and Ad Hoc 860), one involving the dismissal of a rail traffic controller (Ad Hoc 861), and another regarding the dismissal of a locomotive engineer (Ad Hoc 863).
In CN-IBEW case Ad Hoc 837, Arbitrator Graham Clarke examines how going off on disability and later refusing to get vaccinated against Covid-19 impacted the general 30-day requirement for an investigation. On the merits, the award considered whether an employer met its burden of proof by relying on an email from an employee rather than the evidence a grievor provided during his investigation. Ad Hoc 835 and Ad Hoc 836 originally contained a very minor spelling error in the Joint Statements of Issue - the linked files are the corrected versions.
In IBEW-CPKC supplementary award Ad Hoc 822-S, Arbitrator Graham Clarke deals with what medical information the railway's OHS may request from an employee in a possible epilepsy case for accommodation in a safety sensitive position. In CN-IBEW Ad Hoc 848, Arbitrator Clarke is tasked with determining the proper disciplinary response for an S&C Maintainer who incorrectly deactivated a railway crossing which led to a train hitting a van with 3 passengers inside.
The July and August 2023 sessions of CROA were held in Montreal, with Arbitrators John Cameron and Cheryl Yingst Bartel presiding. The awards can be found here. September awards should be on their way soon!
Arbitrator Tom Hodges has issued these awards involving CP and TCRC (CTY): Ad Hoc 849, Ad Hoc 850, Ad Hoc 851, Ad Hoc 852, Ad Hoc 853, Ad Hoc 854, and Ad Hoc 855. And following a previous decision on the dismissal of a locomotive engineer who failed a hair follicle test as part of a Relapse Prevention Agreement, Arbitrator Graham Clarke has now issued this supplementary award AH810-S.
The June 2023 session of CROA was held in Edmonton, with Arbitrator Cheryl Yingst Bartel presiding. The awards can be found here.
In Ad Hoc 835, Arbitrator Graham Clarke deals with the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to a scenario where Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board had been handling the return to work of an injured S&C Maintainer. Ad Hoc 836 covers a whole gamut of issues, including two simultaneous dismissals (of the same employee), harassment, time theft, last chance agreements, and timeliness.
The following cases were heard by Arbitrator Cheryl Yingst Bartel: CP-TCRC-MWED Ad Hoc 830, Ad Hoc 831, and Ad Hoc 832; and CP-TCRC (RCTC) Ad Hoc 833, and Ad Hoc 834.
That's right! After a hiatus of almost one year, the May 2023 hearings of the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution were held in Edmonton, June hearings in Calgary, and there will be a July session as well - presided over by Arbitrators Tom Hodges, Cheryl Yingst Bartel, and James Cameron. Get back into a good habit by checking out the May awards in this table.
Arbitrator Tom Hodges issued these awards in April and May: Ad Hoc 817 (denial of 48 hours' rest), Ad Hoc 818 (layoff), Ad Hoc 819 (discipline for failure to follow work order), Ad Hoc 820 (dismissal), and Ad Hoc 821 (accommodation).
These decisions, issued by Arbitrator Graham Clarke, all involve discipline and dismissal, and include interesting analyses concerning the unique features of the railway disciplinary and investigation procedures: Ad Hoc 825, Ad Hoc 826, Ad Hoc 827, and Ad Hoc 828.
Arbitrator John Stout issued Ad Hoc 816 in a dispute between CN Rail and TCRC-CTY concerning personal leave days. From Arbitrator Graham Clarke, we have Ad Hoc 822, a reinstatement and accommodation arbitration between IBEW S.C. 11 and CP Rail, as well as two awards in French only between VIA Rail and TCRC: Ad Hoc 823 (failure to respect VIA's vaccination policy) and Ad Hoc 824 (a dismissal).
Arbitrator Graham Clarke heard and decided Ad Hoc 809 (ruling on three preliminary objections, not on the merits), Ad Hoc 810 (dismissal of a locomotive engineer who failed a hair follicle test as part of a Relapse Prevention Agreement), Ad Hoc 811 (dismissal of a conductor for a rule violation involving 3-point protection).
Arbitrator Graham Clarke has issued Ad Hoc 805 and Ad Hoc 806, in disputes between CP Rail and the TCRC.
In Ad Hoc 807, the arbitrator determines (among other things) that an anonymous allegation of drug use does not constitute, in and of itself, reasonable grounds for requiring a safety-sensitive employee to undergo a test.
Arbitrator Graham Clarke has issued Ad Hoc 802, Ad Hoc 803, and Ad Hoc 804, in disciplinary disputes between CN Rail and the TCRC-CTY.
In Ad Hoc 801, Arbitrator Graham Clarke, in a dispute between CN Rail and the TCRC-CTY, had to untangle a negotiated clause that "on its face seems to contradict itself". The result is an instructive journey into the principles concerning the interpretation of less-than-clear contract language. He respectfully concludes that both parties "are correct, in part". Well worth a read, IMHO.
Ad Hoc 792 and Ad Hoc 793 are decisions issued by Arbitrator Graham Clarke, in a dispute between CN Rail and the TCRC-CTY concerning a series of disciplinary events involving the same employee.
Ad Hoc 739, Ad Hoc 740, and Ad Hoc 741 are awards issued in French by Arbitrator Michelle Flaherty, in disputes between TCRC and the Quebec Gatineau Railway. Ad Hoc 744 is a decision issued by Arbitrator Johanne Cavé, in a matter between Bombardier Transport and TCRC. Ad Hoc 747, also heard by Arbitrator Cavé, involved Canpar Express and USW Local 1976. Ad Hoc 756, between CN and TCRC, was decided by Arbitrator John Stout. Ad Hoc 767 is another French-language decision by Arbitrator Christine Schmidt, in a matter between VIA Rail and TCRC. Finally, Arbitrator Tom Hodges decided a dispute between TCRC and CP, issuing Ad Hoc 781.
Ad Hoc 794 is a decision issued by Arbitrator Graham Clarke, in a dispute between CN Rail and the TCRC-CTY concerning the appropriate quantum of discipline for improperly lining a switch, leading to a derailment. The arbitration was held in accordance with a new "Supplemental Arbitration Process (SAP)" set up by agreement between these two parties.
The April 2022 CROA awards (heard by Arbitrator Michelle Flaherty) and one additional December award (CR4798) can be found in this table.
Ad Hoc 648 is a decision issued recently by Arbitrator Marilyn Silverman, in a dispute concerning a material change notice from CN Rail to the TCRC-CTY (although it also affected locomotive engineers). The notice was dated Nov. 20, 2014, and the arbitration hearing took place on April 19, 2016.
The December 2021 CROA awards (heard by Arbitrator Johanne Cavé) and the January 2022 awards (heard by Arbitrator Michelle Flaherty) can be found in this table. We have also received Ad Hoc 760 and Ad Hoc 761, between CN and TCRC-CTY.
In Ad Hoc AH671P-2, Arbitrator Graham Clarke rules (in French) on an issue involving a sharing of responsibility of damages between CN and IBEW (S.C. 11) in a harassment case. In Ad Hoc AH711B-SUPP (CP vs. IBEW S.C. 11), Arbitrator Hornung rules on whether or not a dismissed and then reinstated employee had fully mitigated their losses while awaiting arbitration, which affects how much the employer might owe in compensation.
In Ad Hoc 735, Arbitrator Graham Clarke had to consider the appropriate penalty for a long-service Locomotive Engineer who admitted to speeding while operating a "Key train" and already had 55 demerits on his record.
In Ad Hoc 734, Arbitrator Graham Clarke upholds the dismissal of a Locomotive Engineer who "operated his train when an oral drug test later showed he had over 5 times the cut off level for cocaine".
Twelve (12) July CROA awards can be found in this table. Enjoy your holidays safely, and wishing you a better new year!
Both cases, between CP and the TCRC-MWED, were heard by Arbitrator John Moreau. In Ad Hoc 737, the Arbitrator held that the company was not required to conduct a "fair and impartial investigation" where the employee was found to have failed one element of a reinstatement agreement. In Ad Hoc 738, an employee who engaged in a "fundamentally stupid incident" was reinstated without compensation.
CP and the TCRC-MWED asked Arbitrator Clarke to schedule an in-person hearing on a termination case, because they considered that much would depend on credibility of witnesses. The question then arose: Who needs to wear masks, and when? Here is the arbitrator's preliminary decision on that issue, which is surely a sign of our times.
These decisions were rendered recently by Arbitrator Graham Clarke. In Ad Hoc 724, the parties were disagreed as to whether a construction project constituted a TO&O (technological, operational, and organizational) change within the meaning of the Income Security Agreement, as well as how seniority and bumping rights should operate. Ad Hoc 731 and Ad Hoc 732 both involve the termination of employees (one of them a probationer)in connection with drug tests. Many interesting issues are covered - read them and see!
The June CROA awards can be found in this table, including an earlier award (4754) which has now been finalized. We have also received Ad Hoc 722 and SHP 742. Enjoy, and stay safe and healthy!
In Ad Hoc 723 (CP vs. TCRC-LE), a dismissal involving submission of a false wage claim, Arbitrator Hornung had to decide whether the false claim was "fraudulent", or something less. In Ad Hoc 726-P (CN vs. IBEW System Council 11), also a dismissal case, the union, after reviewing the employer's brief, filed three preliminary objections, claiming that the company had expanded the grounds for termination; failed to disclose material evidence at the investigation; and relied on a prior incident which did not form part of the employee's discipline record. Arbitrator Graham Clarke ruled on each of the objections, and invited the parties to schedule the matter later on its merits. [UPDATE June 15, 2021: The parties have reached a settlement, so there will be no award on the merits.] Finally, Ad Hoc 730 (CP vs. TCRC-MWED)involved the dismissal of an employee on allegations of sexual harassment. The union claimed among other things that the dismissal must be ruled "void ab initio" because the investigation was not fair and impartial. Arbitrator Moreau agreed with the union - but given the very serious nature of the offence, he ordered damages instead of reinstatement. The Arbitrator relied on the very recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which reinstated Arbitrator Sims's award in CR4558.
Arbitrator John Moreau presided over the November 2020 and March 2021 CROA sessions, and issued these eleven (11) decisions.
In SHP 740, Arbitrator Vince Ready ruled that CP Rail was justified in dismissing a Rail Car Mechanic for a blue flag violation, which was the culminating event in a series of safety-related disciplinary sanctions. SHP 741, between the same parties, involved the contracting-out of cleaning and sanitizing duties following the retirement of the last remaining Labourer at the Alyth Car Repair Facility. Arbitrator Ready ruled in favour of the Union and ordered the parties to commence a consultation process. Ad Hoc 724-P is a preliminary procedural decision, wherein IBEW System Council 11 had asked CP Rail to produce particulars about its reasons for issuing temporary layoff notices. Arbitrator Graham Clarke reviewed the principles involved in such requests, and issued an order accordingly. Finally, Ad Hoc 729, between CP Rail and the TCRC-MWED, deals yet again with the question of post-incident drug testing, in particular the relative utility of oral and urine tests. Following a long line of case law, Arbitrator John Moreau ordered that the dismissed employee be reinstated because there was no actual evidence of impairment, but finding that the grievor had given "misleading" and "cavalier" answers during his interviews about his use of marijuana, the Arbitrator made no order of compensation.
Ad Hoc 693S is the latest instalment in a long and multifaceted dispute between CP Rail and the TCRC, in which Arbitrator Hornung calculates monetary damages owing to an employee in lieu of reinstatement. The Arbitrator spends the first several paragraphs briefly reviewing past incidents and decisions leading to this one, so the interested reader can then delve into the history at their leisure. In Ad Hoc 727, Arbitrator Christine Schmidt once again tackles the intricacies of post-incident drug testing. In the specific circumstances, the Arbitrator orders CN to reinstate the dismissed member of USW Local 2004, with full compensation - and she further orders the employer to pay "aggravated damages" of $5,000.
CP Rail and the TCRC faced off in two recent arbitrations. One, a work ownership dispute involving the use of U.S. crews in and out of Montreal, was heard and decided by Arbitrator Graham Clarke. The other was a dismissal case - Arbitrator John Moreau's award is here. Last but not least is a very brief, long-lost decision issued in September 1997 by Arbitrator Vince Ready, in a grievance by CAW Local 101 against CP Rail involving contracting-out. It has been dubbed SHP 739. Please excuse the brief delay in getting it up!
These awards just in, from Arbitrator Vince Ready: SHP 735, SHP 736, SHP 737, SHP 738.
After reaching out last month, here's what came pouring in: Ad Hoc 673A, Ad Hoc 673B, Ad Hoc 673C, Ad Hoc 685, Ad Hoc 698, Ad Hoc 703, Ad Hoc 711A, Ad Hoc 711B, Ad Hoc 712, Ad Hoc 713, Ad Hoc 714, Ad Hoc 716A, and Ad Hoc 716B! Thanks, everyone!
Ad Hoc 687 and Ad Hoc 687S are decisions by the late Arbitrator Ted Weatherill dealing with CP's unilateral implementation of a "Grievance Management System". In Ad Hoc 720, Arbitrator John Moreau orders the reinstatement of a dismissed CP conductor and the substitution of a 30-day suspension.
Hello railway arbitration fans! Hope you're all doing well. Just trying to catch up on missing Ad Hoc decisions, in my ample spare time. If you know the whereabouts of any of the following, or better yet if you have copies, please click here to email me, and I'll be happy to track them down and/or add them to our searchable database. Thank you!
648, 652, 669, 673, 674, 685, 686, 687, 688, 698, 703, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716
In Ad Hoc 717. Arbitrator John Moreau is faced with the dismissal of a running trades employee who tested positive for cocaine use in an oral swab test, but negative in a urine test.
Recall that in Ad Hoc 710, the arbitrator overturned the permanent disciplinary demotion of an employee from conductor to maintainer. But it turns out that the employee had earned more in his "lower" position than he would have as a conductor. See how the arbitrator untangled this one in Supplementary award Ad Hoc 710-S.
Another Zoom hearing, SHP 734. Even in the depths of a pandemic, railway-union dispute settlement carries on.
In SHP 732, the union grieved the denial of short term disability benefits to an employee. The arbitrator held that, because the collective agreement provided that such decisions are to be made by the insurer, the grievance could succeed only if there were proof that the insurer, or the company, had acted arbitrarily. That was not the case. In SHP 733, the union grieved that in contracting out four locomotive overhauls, the company had failed to meet the union in advance, answer its questions in a timely way, and give it an opportunity to mount a business case to keep the work in house. The arbitrator agreed with the union, and directed the parties to meet and work out an appropriate remedy.
I know, they're all interesting! But these decisions by Arbitrator Graham Clarke in cases between Bombardier Transportation and the TCRC visit some less common territory: 1. Ad Hoc 709: What are the relative obligations of the employer and the employee in a request for a 5-day accommodation due to temporary disability? 2. Ad Hoc 710: When is a permanent demotion an appropriate disciplinary response? (Hint: not every often.)
Arbitration by video is definitely a thing now! Here are the results of the September CROA hearings.
This is one of those rare grievances filed by the employer against the union. CN grieved that the TCRC unreasonably refused to consent to an increase in hours from 10 to 12 for an extended run on the Sprague Subdivision, between Symington Yard (Winnipeg) and Fort Francis, ON. Click here to see how this drama unfolds!
Three more days of Zoom hearings in July, and we have these 10 CROA decisions.
In Ad Hoc 707 (Bombardier Transportation v. TCRC), Arbitrator Clarke deals among other issues with the difficult question: When would the employer's duty of accommodation reach the point of "undue hardship"? In Ad Hoc 708 (CP v. TCRC), Arbitrator Moreau delves into the complexities of locomotive engineers' seniority districts.
Of course, all railway arbitration awards are worth a read... but this latest one, Ad Hoc 706 by Arbitrator Clarke, involving the termination for drug impairment of a TCRC shopcraft employee at Bombardier Transportation (GO Transit and UP Express Networks in greater Toronto), besides providing a useful review of the case law, has got it all: When is an employee considered impaired at work? When are "punitive" damages awarded, over and above reinstatement and making the employee whole? And that perennial favourite: When is a disciplinary investigation "fair and impartial"? Déjà vu, but always new.
Three days of CROA hearings in June produced these decisions. In the same table, you can also find two additional awards from the May hearings, CROA 4722 and CROA 4724. Finally, we have CROA 4505S, which is a recent supplement to a dismissal decision originally issued in 2016.
Railway arbitrations continue to be heard in pandemic conditions, by video conference. At long last, we are pleased to post all the CROA decisions issued to date since the December hearings. Click here for a list of the awards and a quick description of the parties and the issues. And as a bonus, we have an Ad Hoc award issued by Arbitrator Clarke (en français) on June 25.
Ad Hoc 696S, issued on March 25, 2020, may have been the last railway award written by Arbitrator Ted Weatherill, before his passing on April 13. It is a supplement to Ad Hoc 696, between VIA Rail and Unifor Council 4000. We are also posting an award by Arbitrator Richard Hornung, Ad Hoc 701, in a matter between CP Rail and IBEW System Council No. 11 (Signals and Communication). Stay safe, stay healthy!
A great man has left us. Ted Weatherill, besides all his other contributions, was the architect of our unique system of grievance arbitration on Canadian railways. He served as the sole CROA arbitrator from 1967-1983, in addition to shopcraft and ad hoc arbitrations, and continued to hear and issue decisions until days before his passing, on April 13. Our heartfelt condolences to his partner Nicole Kean and his children. May his wisdom and memory illuminate our path for the future. You can read his obituary and leave a tribute at this site.
For your isolated enjoyment (and my admiration to those still working on the front lines!): AH671 final award, AH699, AH700, AH702, and AH704. Stay safe, stay healthy!
These months are now complete, from CROA 4695-M through 4712, on this page.
17 new Ad Hoc awards can be found by scrolling to the bottom of this page.
Many thanks to the loyal website follower who noticed that SHP 486, a 1999 dispute between CAW and the Ontario Northland re layoff of apprentices, was missing. It's back, and here to stay! Please bring any other errors or absences to our attention, and we'll do our best to find a fix.
Some September and October awards (including the completion of 4695) can be found at the bottom of this page.
This dismissal case, between the TCRC and CP Rail, has seen previous arbitration and judicial review at two levels of court. Its complexity, touching on various important themes, makes it an interesting and useful read IMHO. You can find it here.
UPDATE: Also added Ad Hoc 672.
Two June awards (4688 and 4689) and all five July awards (4691 to 4695) can be found at the bottom of this page.
The May awards (4683 to 4687) can be found at the bottom of the CROA page.
The April awards can be found at the bottom of the CROA page, including CR4663S, in which Arbitrator Clarke determines the damages to be paid to Mr. Harding.
These four awards are now available from the March session of CROA: CR4671, CR4672, CR4673, and CR4674.
These three decisions relate to a grievance by IBEW S.C. 11 against CP Rail concerning a technological, operational, and organizational change. We have now received the preliminary award as to jurisdiction regarding a request for an interim order (AH646P), the final award (AH646), and a supplementary award (AH646S).
Just two awards in February - 4669 and 4670 - but here they are. Previous awards 4650 and preliminary decisions 4658 and 4659 are also now posted.
You can find the newly-added January awards, plus one (4652) from the September session, on the CROA page.
Scroll to the bottom of the CROA page for the latest decisions, including CR4663, wherein the dismissal of Thomas Harding, locomotive engineer of the Lac-Mégantic train, was found by the arbitrator to have been improper - he ordered damages to be paid to Mr. Harding.
Recent and old Ad Hoc awards have been added to the database and are now included in the search engine. We're getting there! Thanks, Brenda Pye.
All May awards and the final April award (CR4631), at this page.
March awards are now complete, and 6 of 9 April awards are available, at this page.
Scroll down to the end of the CROA awards page to view February and March decisions. Also - don't miss CROA 4491, previously missing in action. It contains an important review and update on the consequences of the employer failing to follow procedural requirements concerning notice of investigation, notice of dismissal, etc.
This long-standing dispute between CP and the TCRC was triggered by more than 1,000 grievances connected with the booking of rest. The parties submitted ten (10) questions to be decided by Arbitrator Clarke. To read the full 62-page decision, click here. TCRC West has provided a brief summary of the award, which can be found at the TCRC Calgary website.
A scattering of missing Ad Hoc awards between AH614 and AH661 can be found on this page, and will also be available via the search engine.
At the bottom of this page you will find SHP 720 through 731. SHP 730 is an English translation - we hope to post the original French as well shortly. Thanks to CN's Brenda Pye and Unifor Rail Director Bruce Snow for the updates. - Et la version originale est affichée: SHP730 (français)
Another 11 awards up to CROA 4611 at the bottom of this page: CROA awards page.
Posting awards 4592, 4598, 4599, 6000, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6005 here: CROA awards page.
Most (not yet all) can be found here, starting with 4574: CROA awards page.
I've posted awards 4540, 4541, 4557, and 4565-4573 at the CROA awards page.
Cases 4547-4555 are available on the CROA awards page.
Cases 4536-4539 and 4543, 4545, and 4546 are now posted on the awards page. Some awards yet to come. Happy holidays to all!
Ten decisions from the January CROA hearings, up to CROA 4535, are at the bottom of this page.
We've just posted the December CROA awards - should be almost complete for 2016. You'll find them here: Latest CROA awards. And is it too late to say Happy New Year? Hope not.
Yes! We're now almost complete up to Ad Hoc 651: Ad Hoc awards. I'll fill in a few more soon. And it's been almost 20 years since I first posted railway arbitration awards on the internet. Gotta figure out an appropriate celebration...
Breaking news for arbitration geeks! I've posted about 115 additional Ad Hoc awards, dating between 1980 and 1992, ranging between AH 107 and AH 299. Anyone who really really wants the exact list can email and ask. From a more functional standpoint, they will appear as hits in the search engine results. Besides the usual suspects, the parties to these awards include CN Marine, CP Hotels, CP Telecommunications, CN Telecommunications, CP Airlines, Conship Ltd (I don't know what that was either), the Canadian Pacific Police Association, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, the Canadian Signals and Communications Union (both the latter being predecessors of the IBEW), BC Rail, and more. Enjoy!
Decisions from the October, November, and December sessions of CROA (numbers 4418 to 4430 inclusive) can be found by scrolling to the bottom of this page 4425 is coming, while 4426 was adjourned sine die. Happy New Year everyone!
Decisions from the June, July, and September sessions of CROA (numbers 4406 to 4417 inclusive) can be found by scrolling to the bottom of this page. As always, "refresh" your page if you're not seeing the latest version.
The May CROA awards heard in Calgary (M. Silverman) and Toronto (C. Schmidt) are now available, with two decisions still pending. We also have two awards from the April session in Montreal: CROA 4387 and CROA 4388.
Eleven arbitration awards heard in March by Arbitrators Silverman and Schmidt are now posted.
Arbitrators Christopher Albertyn and Christine Schmidt have issued 15 awards in matters heard in February - and CROA 4352 is now available as well.
And welcome too, in this 50th anniversary year of the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration, to Arbitrator Marilyn Silverman! She heard the January cases in Montreal. Awards 4352 and 4358 are still pending.
A warm welcome to Arbitrator John Stout, who has just issued the November CROA awards.
The dry season is over. The October CROA awards have now been issued by Arbitrator Christine Schmidt, as well as the supplementary award to CROA 4314.
The following summaries reflect what I considered interesting in the awards. Please refer to the full decisions for the real story. :)
SHP 709: [CN v. CAW Local 100, Arbitrator J. Leslie Wallace]
CN terminated a 19-year-old Diesel Mechanic Apprentice, just four months after beginning his 4-year program, for "failure to display the desire and aptitude to learn his trade". After examining the incidents and the case law on termination of apprentices (including SHP 54, SHP 177, SHP 311, SHP 393, and SHP 649), the arbitrator concluded that "the Employer did not allow the Grievor a reasonable opportunity to modify his behavior and bring his performance to acceptable levels after being advised of the deficiencies". He reinstated the grievor with full compensation for lost wages and benefits.
SHP 710: [CN v. CAW Local 100, Arbitrator George S. Monteith]
A 61-year-old Rail Car Mechanic with 36 years of service was dismissed for "communication to fellow employees concerning threats of violence made towards a Company Officer". The arbitrator found that even though the grievor apologized at the subsequent investigation, his apology fell short of being "sincere and unconditional" - and that in fact he did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, characterizing his comments as a poor choice of words. Taking into account "the legal obligation of the Company to provide a safe workplace and the importance of deterrence to prevent any future incidents of this nature", the arbitrator maintained the dismissal.
SHP 712: [VIA Rail v. UNIFOR Local 100, Arbitrator Augustus Richardson]
In this case, a Lead Hand Heavy Duty Mechanic (with less than 3 years' service) was dismissed for "Conduct unbecoming and ongoing harassment of a fellow employee." The arbitrator found that the grievor's behaviour did indeed merit serious discipline (a six-month suspension), it fell somewhat short of justifying termination. In this case, however, the arbitrator found that reinstatement, even with a long suspension, was inappropriate, given that "there was a poisoned atmosphere at the grievor’s workplace, and that the grievor played a role in its creation" - as well as a complete loss of faith or trust between the grievor and the Company. Accordingly, the arbitrator did not reinstate the grievor, ordering instead damages in the amount of two months' wages plus 15% in lieu of benefits.
SHP 713: [CPR v. UNIFOR Local 101R, Arbitrator William D. McFetridge]
This is in fact a series of three awards regarding an employee (with 36 years' service and 9 months short of eligibility for unreduced retirement at age 55) who was fired for allegedly being unfit for duty. The arbitrator found that the only credible evidence was a "smell of alcohol", and there was no sign of impairment - the grievor admitted having consumed two beers, the last one more than 2 1/2 hours before he reported for work. The arbitrator further noted that the company had in effect unilaterally created a rule that any employee subject to call while in "supplementary service" must be totally abstinent, which was an unreasonable rule that exceeded what the parties had negotiated in the collective agreement. He ordered the grievor reinstated with full compensation for all losses, including interest. He went on to say: "The Company’s disregard for its obligations of good faith and fairness in the termination of the grievor’s employment caused him mental distress severe enough to warrant an award of bad faith damages which I assess at $5000."
SHP 714: [CN v. UNIFOR Local 100, Arbitrator Michel Picher]
This is another case involving the non-disciplinary termination of an apprentice, mainly because of absenteeism issues. The arbitrator decided to reinstate the grievor, without compensation, and subject to a two-year period during which he must maintain average or better attendance in his department.
SHP 715: [CN v. UNIFOR Local 100, Arbitrator J.F.W. Weatherill]
The union filed a contracting-out grievance in November 2012 after learning that about 20 locomotives had been sent to a U.S. contract shop for performance of heavy repairs and "capital" project work, in almost all cases without any prior notice to or discussion with the union. The company claimed it was under no obligation to notify the union because there was allegedly no material or adverse effect on employees (no one was on layoff at the time). CN also claimed that the work in question did not belong "exclusively" to the bargaining unit, and that in any case it could not have been done in Canada (primarily Transcona) with available staff and resources. The arbitrator ruled in favour of the union, finding that CN had indeed violated the contracting-out clause; that "most" of the work in question was protected by its scope; that Canadian employees had lost overtime opportunities (and therefore written 30-day notice was required); and that in all cases, even where there is no "adverse effect", discussions must precede contracting-out. He mandated the parties to determine how much compensation was owing to union members.
SHP 716: [CPR v. CAW Local 101, Arbitrator Michel Picher]
This 2007 award was just recently added to the SHP database. It concerns the dismissal for theft of an employee with 30 years' service. The arbitrator decided to reinstate him without compensation, finding that the grievor's behaviour did not constitute deliberate and concealed theft, but rather unreasonable hoarding of company items beyond what was needed in his work. The grievor's long service, his good prior record, and immediate apology and demonstration of regret also counted in his favour.
SHP 717: [Essex Terminal Railway v. UNIFOR Local 101R, Arbitrator Ted Crljenica]
This was a dispute about overtime pay based on the particular language of this collective agreement. The arbitrator disagreed with both the union's and the company's interpretation of the language - and dismissed the grievance.
SHP 718: [CPR v. UNIFOR Local 101R, Arbitrator Tom Hodges]
The grievor, a Diesel Mechanic Apprentice, was fired for failure to properly disclose relevant medical information, relating to substance abuse and prior rehabilitation treatment, on his pre-employment medical in 2007. The failure came to light only five years later, when he sought assistance for substance abuse from the Employee and Family Assistance Plan. The arbitrator held that: "His entire period of employment with CPR was predicated on a deception that he alone allowed to fester." He found that on all the evidence, including failure on the grievor's part to recognize his addiction, there could be no confidence that reinstatement with a last-chance agreement could repair the damage. The grievance was dismissed.
SHP 719: [CPR v. UNIFOR Local 101, Arbitrator Tom Hodges]
An employee caused a locomotive to derail on a shop track. He was assessed 25 demerits on that account (which was upheld at arbitration). He then tested positive in a post-incident drug test. Ultimately he was dismissed for failing the test, as well as "providing false and/or misleading information" during his formal investigation, when he speculated that the positive reading might have been caused by second-hand smoke. After reviewing the conduct of the company in conducting the investigation, the nature of the tests applied, the inordinate delays involved, and the lengthy period during which the employee was held out of service, the arbitrator concluded that the charges relating to "dishonesty" as well as "failing" the drug test were not made out. The employee was reinstated with full compensation.
CROA awards 4320-4332, issued in Montreal by Arbitrator Picher, are now available - except CROA 4236, which is adjourned until the September session. Enjoy your summer!
Arbitrator Christine Schmidt has issued five awards following the June session of the CROA in Edmonton.
Here are the May CROA awards (except CROA 4309, which is pending), heard May 13-15 in Montreal by Arbitrator Michel Picher.
The April CROA awards were issued by Arbitrator Michel Picher, following hearings in Montreal.
Finally got the March CROA awards posted. They were heard in Calgary by Arbitrator Christine Schmidt. Thanks for your patience!
And here are the February CROA awards, heard in Montreal by Arbitrator Michel Picher.
It's Valentine's Day - do you feel the love? Reading the January CROA awards might help! They were heard in Montreal by Arbitrator Christine Schmidt.
These are the December CROA awards, heard in Montreal by Arbitrator Michel Picher. Best wishes to all for the holiday season and a safe, healthy, and happy 2014!
Here are thirteen new awards from the November session of CROA, heard in Calgary by Arbitrator Michel Picher.
The October CROA cases 4242 to 4250 were heard in Montreal by Arbitrator Christine Schmidt. Welcome to our world!
And here they are, CROA awards 4230 to 4241 inclusive.
At long last, I'm posting Shopcraft awards 694 to 708 from CP, CN, and VIA Rail. I hope to comment later about some that looked particularly interesting. And/or, send me your questions or comments as well!
Here are 13 awards from the July CROA session in Montreal. Hearings will resume September 10, 11, and 12.
The awards are now available from the June CROA session in Edmonton.
Ten new awards and one supplemental award have been issued after the May CROA session in Montreal.
The April CROA awards are now available.
Here they are: the February awards and the March awards. Enjoy the holiday weekend (including all those who have to work)!
Best wishes to Colette Newton on her retirement from the position of General Secretary of the CROA&DR and many thanks for being the mainstay and strength of the office over so many years. And a warm welcome to April Dumas, who got right down to business by posting the awards of the January 2013 session in Montreal.
Happy New Year! And here, from 4161 to 4166, are the final CROA awards of 2012, as well as a supplemental decision in 4143, originally heard in October.
CROA awards 4150 through 4160 (except 4158, which is still pending) have been added - you can reference them by scrolling to the bottom of this page.
CROA awards from the October session (numbers 4141 to 4149 inclusive) are now available, as well as CROA 4110 from June.
Another 30 awards have been added to the database. You can find them by CROA number by clicking here and then hitting Ctrl-F to search the list, or of course by using the Freefind search bar above. Look for more Shopcraft and Ad Hoc awards soon.
Scroll to the bottom of this page to find SHP 679 through 693. And thanks to CN's Brenda Pye and Brian Stevens of the CAW for keeping us supplied and updated.
Technical difficulties with the CROA updates are on the road to being resolved. You will find the March, April, and May awards (from 4092S through 4109 inclusive) beginning here. Thanks as always to Colette Newton of the CROA&DR office for her help. June awards as well as Shopcraft updates will follow soon.
Here are the awards from the February CROA session, from 4085 to 4092 inclusive. We also have SHP 678 (CN vs. CAW re discharge of a car mechanic) and SHP 673, the final award in the VIA dental plan dispute regarding coverage of cleaning and scaling of teeth - the preliminary award can be found here.
Eleven (11) new awards, numbers 4074 to 4084, have been added from the January session of CROA (held in Montreal, Arbitrator M. Picher presiding), as well as Shopcraft awards 676 and 677.
Apologies
for the lengthy absence... took a wrong turn somewhere!
While this site is somewhat in transition, you will hopefully now find that
it contains all CROA&DR awards up to and including the December session
(CROA 4073), all Shopcraft awards up to SHP 675, and all Ad Hoc awards up to
AH 613. Most importantly, all these awards are now included in the search
database.
The next step will be to resume summaries of interesting cases. In the
meantime, I wish you a Happy New Year and lots of good reading and research.
As always, if you find any error, or you need any assistance, please don't
hesitate to send me an email at the link above.