CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
CASE NO. 1071
Heard at Montreal, Wednesday, April 13th, 1983
CANADIAN PACIFIC EXPRESS LIMITED
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES
Discipline imposed on T. Sullivan, Obico Terminal, Toronto, Ontario, for (alleged) repeated failure to attend investigations scheduled for October 5, 6, 8 and 14, 1982.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Union contends that the discipline is unjust and contrary to article 8.7 of the collective agreement. Further, there is non-compliance by the Company with article 8.1 and 8.2 of the collective agreement (see notices of investigation). The discipline is also excessive and contrary to the law (see Section 184 of the Canada Labour Code and the Constitution Act, 1982, Section 2).
The Company contends that the discipline was duly imposed and appropriate in the circumstances and that the grievance should be dismissed.
FOR THE BROTHERHOOD: FOR THE COMPANY:
(SGD.) J. J. BOYCE (SGD.) D. R. SMITH
General Chairman Director, Industrial Relations
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
D. W. Flicker – Counsel, CP. Ltd., Montreal
D. R. Smith – Director, Industrial Relations, Personnel and Administration, Toronto
B. D. Neill – Manager, Labour Relations, Toronto
E. F. Schwarz – Regional Manager, Toronto
K. Rankin – Manager, P&D, Toronto
J. W. McColgan – Labour Relations Officer, CPR, Montreal
And on behalf of the Brotherhood:
D. Watson – Counsel, Toronto
J. J. Boyce – General Chairman, Toronto
J. Crabb – General Secretary-Treasurer, Toronto
T. Sullivan – Grievor
AWARD OF THE Arbitrator
This case is, in my view, closely comparable to Case No. 1045. In this case as in that the grievor did not attend an investigation of his failure to report to work for the same reasons which led him not to report in the first place. The grievor did advise the Company that he was not willing to attend at the time scheduled, and asked that the hearing be postponed. There was no defiance of authority or obstruction of the investigation process in any substantial sense. The Company wisely – and I think generously – arranged to have the investigation later, at a location off the Company premises.
For the reasons given in Case No. 1045, it is my view that there was not just cause for the imposition of discipline in the particular circumstances of this case. It is my award that the 20 demerits assessed be removed from the grievor's record.
(signed) J. F. W. WEATHERILL