CASE-NO : AH360

DATE : 04/7/95

PARTIES : CN CCROU

COMMENTS:

CASES# : 2356

TEXT :

 

 

 

AWARD

 

This is the grievance of Conductor B.L. Ewald for a violation of CROR Rule 429 at Signal 1318 of the Albrea Subdivision on Wednesday, December 19, 1990 while in charge of Train 216, Extra 9576 East.

 

The facts are not complex nor essentially disputed. It appears that as train 216 was preparing to depart to Blue River it was required first to proceed to a stop signal within the yard, at its eastern extremity. The train proceeded approximately a half mile to that location and was required to stop unless it should have clearance to proceed, referred to as a 564 Authority. The authority was not given to the train and by the engineerís error the speed which the movement gathered made it impossible to stop in time, notwithstanding the application of the trainís emergency brakes. Although the crossing of the stop signal appears to have been minor, there is no question that there was violation of the Rule in question.

 

The position of the Union is that the responsability should be entirely borne by the locomotive engineer. I cannot agree. The grievorís explanation is that he was occupied with reviewing bills, checking the bills and the journal in his possession as the movement proceeded towards the stop signal. There is no doubt a responsability on conductors to deal with documentation during the course of a particular tour of duty. However, I am not sympathetic to the suggestion that they should necessarily be doing so as they are consciously approaching a stop signal. That is what transpired in this case and, unfortunately, the grievor was unable to bring any pressure to bear on the locomotive engineer to initiate the appropriate steps to stop his movement in time. I cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that there was no responsability on the part of the conductor nor can I find that there is any error on the part of the Company in the assessement of the 30-day suspension which was given to the conductor in the case at hand. The jurisprudence reviewed by the Company as reflected in CROA 2356, would indicate that in many similar cases a 30-day suspension against the conductor who bears the primary responsability for the movement of train under the rules is within the appropriate range of discipline. I am satisfied that in the instant case that is so.

For these reasons, the grievance must be dismissed.

 

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

 

Michel G. Picher - Arbitrator