CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3743
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY
NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL
WORKERS UNION OF
Twenty (20) demerits assessed Mr Kemp for allegedly failing to properly fuel a locomotive which resulted in his dismissal for accumulation of demerits greater than sixty (60).
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Union requested comprehensive records and documentation
on whether the current fuelling gauges, overflow and sight glasses were in
disrepair and subject to the attention in the
In the alternative, the
The Company rejects the
(SGD.) D. OLSHEWSKI (SGD.) D. S. FISHER
GENERAL CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR, LABOUR RELATIONS
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
D. S. Fisher –
Director, Labour Relations,
R. Bateman –
Sr. Manager, Labour Relations,
And on behalf of the
D. Olshewski –
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The grievor acknowledged that he was responsible for fuelling the locomotive when it left the Symington yard. He noted at his investigation that he determines if the unit requires fuel by looking at the sight glass. He further stated that he does not always check the fuel gauge because they are often “broken and unreliable”. In answer to a question as to what he would do if the sight glass was defective, the grievor stated that he would apply the fuel nozzle and start fuelling. He did not have a specific recollection that it was broken on the day of the incident but did say that he tried to fuel the tank 3 or 4 times – but the fuel nozzle stopped almost immediately each time. The grievor was asked whether he then checked to see if there was any fuel in the overflow line and he stated that he did not recall seeing the fuel line on the unit.
Neither the two sight gauges (one on each side of the locomotive), nor the fuel gauge, nor the overflow line were reported defective on the Corrective Notification Report. Further, given that the grievor was able to recall that the nozzle stopped some three or four times while he was trying to fuel the locomotive, it is doubtful that he would not have commented one way or the other when asked about the fuel gauge at his investigation. His answer in that regard was to simply say that he does not check them “because allot [sic] are broken and unreliable”. The evidence, on balance, is more consistent with the Company’s submission that the grievor was filling the locomotive on the same side the fuel gauge was located. Had the grievor checked the fuel levels properly, he would have noticed that the tank was not full. The grievor should, at the very least, have followed up and checked the overflow line once he felt the fuel nozzle stopping three or four times or conducted a manual check to make sure the tank was full. The grievor, in my view, was being inattentive to his core duties and was deserving of discipline.
The grievor was on the tipping point for termination prior
to this incident having accumulated 55 demerits. His recent discipline record
includes a suspension from
I would also add that this is not a case where the grievor
was denied a fair and impartial investigation. The grievor was given the
opportunity to make a full answer at the investigation and no procedural
objections were raised by the
The grievance is dismissed for all the above reasons.