CASE-NO : AH358

DATE : 22/06/95

PARTIES : CN CCROU

COMMENTS:

CASES# :

TEXT :

 

 

 

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 Trainperson J.D. Killick of Melville, Saskatchewan.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

AWARD

 

This grievance concerns the assessment of 15 demerit points against Trainperson J.D. Killick of Melville, Saskatchewan. He is alleged to have violated U.C.O.R. Rule 104 E on August 26, 1989.

It is not disputed that a car which was being spotted under the direction of Mr. Killick did derail on August 26, 1989. There is some conflict in the accounts of the events which relate to whether or not the grievor or the locomotive engineer was at fault in the circumstances. Also, the Union suggests that the application of U.C.O.R. Rule 104 E by the Company is inappropriate in the circumstances.

After hearing both parties, I am not convinced of the position argued by the Union. It seems to me, on the basis of what I have heard, Mr. Killick was in the best position to know the relationship between the derail at the west end of the track in question as it related to the cars being moved, and that it was an incumbent upon him to be aware of the derail and to advise the locomotive engineer accordingly to ensure a safe movement. Rule 104 E provides, in part: "Employees must know where such derails are located". It seems to me that what that implies is that it is incumbent upon an employee charged with the movement of a train in or about the vicinity of a derail to ensure that such movement does not come into contact with a derail or be adversely impacted by it.

I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that there was any failure in communication as regards the operation of the grievorís radio. It seems that that was not raised in the initial investigation by the grievor himself and that the locomotive engineerís own account of what transpired suggests that there was a full communication.

The assessment of 15 demerits is obviously a serious level of discipline. By the same token, so is negligence which would result in the derailment of any equipment. I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case to substitute a lesser penalty and I say that with the greatest respect and, indeed, admiration for the length of the grievorís service and his prior record. In the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that the Company had just cause for the assessment of 15 demerits and the grievance must be dismissed.

 

DATED at Toronto this 4th day of July, 1995.

 

Michel G. Picher - Arbitrator