Heard at Montreal, Thursday, March 13, 1986

Concerning

and

Concerns request by the Union for the removal of twenty (20) demerit marks issued to Mr. B. O’Hara, July 4, 1985, for leaving work after six and one-half hours prior to completion of eight (8) hours on June 13, 1985.

June 13, 1985, Mr. B. O’Hara returned to the Edmonton Terminal, cashed in his bills and advised the Dispatcher that he was leaving for the day.

The Company’s position is that B. O’Hara’s statement that he believed the Dispatcher to be a Supervisor is unbelievable and declined the Union’s request for the cancellation of the twenty (20) demerit marks.

The Union’s position is that B. O’Hara was not paid for the one and one-half hours he did not work on June 13, 1985, and that this employee truly believed that dispatchers are Company Officers.

The relief requested is for the removal of the twenty (20) demerit marks.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

N. W. Fosbery – Director Labour Relations, Toronto

D. Bennett – Human Resources Officer, CanPar, Toronto

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

G. Moore – Vice-General Chairman, Moose Jaw

J. Crabb – General Secretary-Treasurer, Toronto

Cases 1493, 1494 and 1495 will be consolidated and heard together.

It is common ground that the grievor, Mr. O’Hara has been employed as warehouseman/driver since June 10, 1983. His cumulative disciplinary record since his date of hire, as the Company’s evidence disclosed, has been truly abysmal.

In the first incident the grievor was disciplined for his alleged violation of the Vehicleman’s Instruction Manual for his failure to make sure a label indicating the addressee of the goods was secured on the shipment. The grievor’s explanation was that the label must have fallen off the shipment. In this regard the shipment was "shrink wrapped" and therefore would not likely have fallen off.

The grievor was assessed ten demerit marks for this incident.

In the second incident the grievor left work 1-1/2 hours before his quitting time. He complained of feeling ill and "told" the dispatcher he was going home. Of course, the proper procedure for the grievor to have followed would have required him to secure "permission" of his immediate supervisor.

For this infraction he was assessed 20 demerit marks.

In the third incident the grievor secured from the customer the necessary waybills and other documentation with respect to shipments but neglected to pick up the shipment itself. The grievor’s excuse was that there was a mechanical defect to his truck that prevented him from backing up to the customer’s dock in order to secure the shipment.

For this alleged neglect of duty the grievor was assessed 15 demerit marks which resulted in his discharge.

Based on the rather flimsy and transparent explanations extended the grievor for his wrongdoings I have no intention of interfering with the penalties that were assessed. The grievor appeared incapable of performing the fundamental functions of his position.

The Company, based on the grievor’s abysmal record, has attempted to adhere to the principle of progressive discipline. In the face of that record, it should not have to tolerate the grievor’s presence as an employee any longer.

As a result the grievances are denied.