Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, 13 November 1990

concerning

and

Dismissal of Locomotive Engineer R. Lachance, 10 October 1989, for the accumulation of more than 60 demerits

On 27 September 1989, Mr. R. Lachance was the locomotive engineer on Train 389 (Extra 9443 South) operating between Garneau (Quebec) and Montreal. On that date a work crew was working between Mileage 102 and Mileage 112 on the Joliette Subdivision.

The crew of Train 389 was in possession of the train order reproduced below:

Despite the requirements of the train order, part of the grievor’s trains passed the red signal at Mileage 102, without the prior authorization of Foreman Lebeau.

Following an investigation, 30 demerit marks were assessed to the grievor for: having failed to conform to the requirements of UCOR Rule 27, resulting in a violation of UCOR Rule 42 at Mileage 102 on the Joliette Subdivision, while working as the locomotive engineer on Extra 9443 South, 27 September 1989.

This discipline, when added to the 45 demerit marks already on his discipline record, gave the grievor a total of 75 demerits, which resulted in his discharge.

The Brotherhood maintains that the red signal was badly situated, that this was a minor incident which did not present any risk of collision, and that for this reason the discipline is unjustified and, in any case, too severe.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

M. S. Hughes – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

J. B. Bart – Manager, Labour Relations, Montreal

J. E. Pasteris – Manager, Labour Relations, St. Lawrence Region, Montreal

O. Lavoie – Labour Relations Officer, St. Lawrence Region, Montreal

A. Zubricky – General Yardmaster, Rivière des Prairies

M. S. Fisher – Coordinator, Transportation, Montreal

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

G. Hallé – General Chairman, Quebec

G. Whiteman – Local Chairman, Montreal

R. Lachance – Grievor

The evidence establishes, to the satisfaction of the Arbitrator, that the grievor was liable to a significant amount of discipline for passing the red flag at Mileage 102, contrary to the directives of his daily operating bulletin, as well as the requirements of UCOR Rules 27 and 42. Given the state of his discipline record, which includes two incidents of speeding, one of which occurred after his reinstatement by the Arbitrator in 1988 (CROA 1769), I must come to the conclusion that the thirty demerits, and his subsequent discharge, were justified in the circumstances of this case.

For these reasons the grievance is dismissed

November 16, 1990 (Sgd.) MICHEL G. PICHER