AH – 377
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LIMITED
OF RAILWAY OPERATING UNIONS
(UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION)
GRIEVANCE RE Discipline assessed P. T. Kidd
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
M. E. Keiran – Manager, Labour Relations, Vancouver
M. G. DeGirolamo – Director, Labour Relations, Montreal
R. E. Wilson – Manager, Labour Relations, Toronto
G. Chehowy – Manager, Labour Relations, Montreal
L. J. Guenther – Labour Relations Officer, Vancouver
R. M. Smith – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal
H. B. Butterworth – Labour Relations Officer, Toronto
And on behalf of the Union:
B. L. McLafferty – Vice-General Chairperson (UTU), Moose Jaw
L. O. Schillaci – General Chairperson (UTU), Calgary
D. A. Warren – General Chairperson (UTU), Toronto
R. S. McKenna – General Chairman (BLE), Barrie
D. C. Curtis – General Chairman (BLE), Calgary
S. B. Keene – Vice-General Chairperson (UTU), London
V. H. Hamilton – Secretary (UTU), Lumbarby
A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal, 12 February 1996
The Dispute and Joint Statement of Issue submitted by the parties at the hearing are as follows:
Discipline assessed to Trainperson P.T. Kidd, Revelstoke, B.C.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Following a formal investigation, Trainperson P.T. Kidd was assessed forty (40) demerit marks for: “failing to complete your tour of duty and failing to protect the requirements of your assigned position by abandoning your train without authority or notice, Flat Creek, November 27, 1993.”
The Union has requested that the discipline be reduce from 40 demerit marks to 20 demerit marks.
The instant case concerns the assessment of forty demerits against Trainperson P.T. Kidd. It is common ground that Trainperson Kidd abandoned his assignment during the delay of his train enroute on or about November 27, 1993. Mr. Kidd departed his train while it was delayed by a wreck, without obtaining any prior permission, and hitchhiked to his home terminal of Revelstoke. In explanation of his actions he asserts that he was concerned about the flare-up of an ulcer in the circumstances in which he found himself.The Company has declined to accede to the Union’s request.
The Arbitrator is not greatly impressed with the explanation given by Mr. Kidd, and still less by his action in abandoning his post. The Company quite candidly, however, comments that it is without many precedents to deal with this type of action. In this case, as in any case of discipline, regard must be had to the particular circumstances. The grievor appears to have been an employee of ten years’ service previous, without any discipline whatsoever. Further, the Union’s able representative brings to the Arbitrator’s attention a prior incident in which similar conduct, and indeed perhaps more grievous, merited thirty demerits.
I am not satisfied that twenty demerits is appropriate for so serious an infraction as is disclosed here. In the result, however, I would be of the view that thirty demerits is appropriate, with particular regard to the ten prior years of good service entered by this employee.
In the result, the grievance is allowed, in part. The discipline shall be amended to reflect the assessment of thirty demerits.
Signed at Montreal, this 14th day of February, 1996
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER