IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY

(the Company)

-and-

CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY OPERATING UNIONS

(UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION)

(the Union)

GRIEVANCE RE Conductor R.H. St-Laurent of Winnipeg.

ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher

APPEARING FOR Basil Laidlaw - Labour Relations Officer,

THE COMPANY: Edmonton, Alberta

Rob Reny - Labour Relations Officer,

Edmonton, Alberta

APPEARING FOR J.W. Armstrong - General Chairperson

THE UNION:

M.G. Eldridge - Vice-General Chairperson

Darlene Gagnon - Office Secretary

A hearing in this matter was held in Calgary on June 22 & 23, 1995.

Upon a review of the evidence, the arbitrator is satisfied that there can be no question of the fact that the grievor did disregard paragraph 3 of a District Notice MD 4057/93 issued to the attention of all running crews. He was obliged, in accordance with that instruction, to proceed to the diesel shop and assist in tying on the motive power to the appropriate departure track, in the event that the documentation for his train was not available at order time. It is not disputed that the grievor did not do that. He suggests that he was offered the option of awaiting the documentation by the Chief Clerk. The arbitrator is not impressed with that explanation as the Chief Clerk is plainly not authorized by the Company to countermand general instructions to crews. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the grievor knowingly disregarded instruction which is of some concern to the efficient operations of the Company.

The second aspect in this case is whether or not Mr.St-Laurent’s actions resulted in the delay of his train. The Union says that the evidence does not show that it did. The Company submits that log records would indicate otherwise. Before me, the burden of proof in a matter of discipline is, of course, upon the Company in respect of all elements. I am sympathetic to the Company’s concerns, but I must conclude that in the case at hand, on the balance of probabilities, I can’t make a firm finding that there was a delay of the grievor’s train caused by his action in disregarding the instruction. In the circumstances, I am satisfied, though, that the seriousness of his action merited the assessment of demerits, but not to the extent of ten. I will, therefore, substitute five demerits for the grievor’s actions of June 3, 1993, and it is so directed.

DATED at Toronto this 4th day of July 1995.

Michel G. Picher - Arbitrator