AH – 425
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CP EXPRESS & TRANSPORT
TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION
GRIEVANCE RE THE DISCHARGE OF STÉPHANE VERCAIGNIE
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
R.M. Skelly – Counsel
L. Bechamp – Counsel
B.F. Weinert – Manager, Labour Relations
And on behalf of the Union:
G. Marceau – Counsel
K. Cahill – Counsel
J.J. Boyce – General Chairman
M. Gauthier – Vice-General Chairman
G. Lemire – Local Chairman
Representing other grievors:
R. Mercier – Counsel
F. Poirier – Counsel
A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal, March 27, 28, 29 and 30 and June 11, 1990. (A verbal decision was rendered on July 24, 1990.)
The Dispute and Joint Statement of Issue filed at the hearing read as follows:
After having been arrested on August 17, 1989 by Canadian Pacific Police Officers, Mr. Stéphane Vercaignie was suspended from his employment on August 18, 1989 and subsequently dismissed on August 28, 1989.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Following an investigation held on August 25, 1989, the grievor was dismissed for traffic and possession of drugs on August 17, 1989.
The Union grieves the discharge for the following reasons:
a) The grievor was discipline six (6) days before the investigation which resulted in his dismissal;
b) The investigating officer did not act in good faith;
c) The grievor always admitted that he committed the acts with which he is charged, but insists that the police officers exerted undue pressure on him to procure drugs for them;
d) The grievor never used drugs while at work;
e) The discharge of the grievor is illegal, unjust and too severe given all of the circumstances.
The Union requests that the discharge of the grievor be substituted by less severe measure of discipline and that Mr. Vercaignie be reinstated without loss of seniority, wages or benefits to which he is entitled by virtue of the Collective Agreement.
The Company rejects the claims of the Union and rejected the grievance at all steps of the grievance procedure.
The evidence reveals without contradiction that the grievor, who had at that time four years’ seniority, twice sold hashish to two police officers on Company property between July 31 and August 17, 1989. For this, on February 5, 1990, he was given a two year suspended sentence for the traffic of illegal drugs.
For the reasons outlined in the award of the same date of employee Daniel Champagne, the Arbitrator rejects the claims of the Union relative to the disciplinary procedure followed by the Company, and the role played by the CP Police. Likewise, I can see not merit in the suggestion that Mr. Vercaignie deserves a reduction id discipline, given the repetition and gravity of his infraction as well as his short length of service with the Company.
For these reasons the grievance is dismissed.
SIGNED at Toronto this 17th day of September 1990.
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER