AH – 430
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CP EXPRESS & TRANSPORT
TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION
GRIEVANCE RE DISCHARGE OF STÉPHANE GADOSY
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
R. M. Skelly – Counsel
L. Béchamp – Counsel
B. F. Weinert – Manager, Labour Relations
C. McSween – Regional Manager, Quebec and the Maritimes
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
A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal, March 27, 28, 29 and 30 and June 11, 1990.
Prior to the hearing the parties filed the following Dispute and Joint Statement of Issue:
After having been arrested by Canadian Pacific Police Officers on August 17, 1989, Mr. Stéphane Gadosy 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 discharged for offering to sell drugs on August 9, 1989, and for possession and use of drugs on Company property on August 17, 1989.
The Union grieves the discharge of the grievor for the following reasons:
a) The grievor was disciplined six (6) days before the investigation leading to his dismissal;
b) The grievor did not commit the offences of which he is accused;
c) The police officers used undue pressure and illegal procedures to try to incriminate the grievor;
d) On August 17, 1989, the grievor was the object of an illegal and abusive search on the part of Canadian Pacific police officers;
e) The investigating officer did not act in good faith;
f) The discharge is illegal, unjustified and too severe given all of the circumstances.
The Union requests the reinstatement of Mr. Gadosy without loss of seniority, wages or benefits.
The Company rejects the contentions of the Union and rejected the grievance at all steps of the grievance procedure.
I cannot accept the Union’s claims concerning the quality of the police investigation and the failure to comply with the time limits set out in the Collective Agreement.
The Arbitrator accepts that the Company’s claim, that Mr. Gadosy had in his possession a small quantity of hashish at the workplace on August 17, 1989, is well founded. While he had also discussed the possibility of obtaining drugs for another employee, that did not occur. I judge that this second offence qualifies more as empty bragging and without any consequence. It does not therefore merit any disciplinary sanction.
The possession of an illegal drug at the workplace is in itself an infraction of the rules which justifies a serious disciplinary penalty. However, in the circumstances of Mr. Gadosy, the Arbitrator judges that discharge is excessive. I therefore order that he be reinstated into his employment, without compensation and without loss of seniority. He must fully understand that a second indiscretion of this type could justify his discharge.
The Arbitrator remains seized.
SIGNED at Toronto this 3rd day of August 1990.
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER