Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, May 11th, 1971

Concerning

and

The Brotherhood claims that the Company violated Article 2.1, 24.2 and 24.5 of Agreement 5.1, and that Settlement Clerk L.M. Fagan was unjustly dealt with when his personal belongings were searched by a CNR Constable.

At the completion of his regular tour of duty on May 26, 1970 Mr. Fagan, who was leaving the Railway premises, was stopped by a Canadian National Railway Constable and subjected to a search of his personal belongings (utility bag). He objected to it, but to no avail.

The Brotherhood contends that such action on the part of the Railway Constable is in violation of the terms of Agreement 5.1, and claims that Mr. Fagan has been unjustly dealt with.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

D. O. McGrath – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

E. A. Spearing – Director of Investigation, Montreal

W. Skelly – Superintendent of Investigation, Toronto

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

J. D. Hunter – Regional Vice President, Toronto

G. Wilson – Local Chairman, Toronto

L. M. Fagan – Grievor

The grievor was, as stated in the Employees’ Statement of Issue, subjected to a search of his utility bag as he left the Company’s premises following his tour of duty on May 26, 1970. This was the first time in some fourteen years’ employment with the company that the grievor had been subject to such a procedure. It was the evidence of other union witnesses that they had never, over many years with the company, had a similar experience. On the other hand, it was the company’s evidence that spot checks have been conducted where it was thought necessary, throughout the system, for many years.

Past practice is of little import in such a case. The question is whether the company is entitled to subject its employees to checks of this sort. The examination of the grievor’s belongings was clearly in the nature of a spot check, and was not part of any "investigation" of any alleged irregularity involving him. In the grievance reference is made to three articles of the collective agreement, but of these, it is clear that only article 24.2 is material. Article 2.1 is the recognition clause, and Article 24.5 provides for a grievance procedure. Nothing in the material before me suggests any violation of these provisions.

Article 24.2 is as follows.

Routine inspection of lunch pails or packages being carried out of employers’ premises are a common procedure in industry. While the practice is, in a sense, a sort of "investigation" within the everyday meaning of that word, it does not constitute an investigation within the meaning of Article 24.2. What is involved here is simply a surveillance of employee conduct on the premises, a matter well within the normal managerial process and not restricted by anything in the collective agreement. It is not necessarily an exercise of any of the special powers held by the company’s police as peace officers, but is simply an exercise of management’s right to check what may be carried off its premises.

There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to indicate that the grievor was being deliberately victimized or embarrassed by this procedure. He may have found it a distasteful matter, but the fact is that it is a normal incident of industrial life, and, at least in this case, carried no particular implications with respect to the grievor. In my view, there was no violation of the collective agreement in these circumstances.

Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.