CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3957
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION
AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION OF
Dismissal of Heavy Equipment Operator Gilles Roy.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
(SGD.) A. ROSNER (SGD.) S. GROU
NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE SR. MANAGER, LABOUR RELATIONS
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
C. Gilbert –
Manager, Labour Relations,
S. Grou –
Sr. Manager, Labour Relations,
M. Vachon –
Sr. Manager, Terminal Operations,
M. Malenfant –
C. Laforest –
There appeared on behalf of the
A. Rosner –
J. Savard –
A. St-Pierre –
R. Robidoux –
G. Roy – Grievor
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
before the Arbitrator confirms that on
The record confirms, beyond controversy, that Mr. Laforest parked his truck some fifteen feet from the crane being operated by Mr. Roy, and had visual contact with him signalling that it was time for his break. However Mr. Roy did not respond as expected. Rather, he backed his crane at a brisk speed, stopping suddenly within a foot of Mr. Laforest’s truck. As a blue flashing light was still operating, Mr. Laforest was aware that the machine still remained in reverse. He then quickly undertook to back his truck away, as Mr. Roy apparently continued his backward movement, apparently proceeding to the next container he had to handle.
The record confirms that Mr. Laforest then contacted Supervisor Malenfant to advise that the grievor was not coming, as expected. Mr. Malenfant then communicated with Mr. Roy by radio to advise him that he was to take his break at that time, that Mr. Laforest was sent to get him for that purpose and that Mr. Laliberté would take his place. It seems that Mr. Roy then responded to Mr. Malenfant that he would not get into the vehicle operated by Lead Hand Laforest, providing no explanation. Mr. Malenfant then sent another lead hand to fetch Mr. Roy.
It appears that what ensued was an encounter between Mr. Malenfant and the grievor, as well as his Union representative, in the office. As Mr. Malenfant was explaining to Mr. Roy that his conduct was not acceptable it appears that Mr. Laforest arrived in the office and asked Mr. Roy why he backed his crane so close to his vehicle. It appears that Mr. Roy then erupted and shouted that Mr. Laforest should get away from him. It appears that following that incident Mr. Laforest left work in a shaken state.
After a disciplinary investigation Mr. Roy was assessed forty demerits and was terminated for the accumulation of demerits in excess of sixty, having an aggregate total of ninety-four demerits.
After a careful
review of the material, the Arbitrator is left in substantial doubt about the
sincerity of the grievor’s apology and his pursuit of help for anger
management. As noted above, while the incident occurred on
disturbing is the grievor’s prior disciplinary record. Over his nineteen years
of service Mr. Roy has incurred substantial and recurring discipline for
serious behavioural issues. The instant case involves the sixth occasion where
unacceptable conduct has been the cause of discipline for Mr. Roy. The record
confirms that his gross misconduct on
On a review of the whole of the record, the Arbitrator is not persuaded that the grievor is either sincere in his apology or in his belated commitment to exploring anger management. For years he has had the benefit of progressive discipline for recurring incidents of unacceptable behaviour, unfortunately without any rehabilitative effect. There is little reason to believe that rehabilitation is now likely.
For all of the foregoing reasons the grievance must be dismissed.