CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3995
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION
AND GENERAL WORKERS’ UNION OF
The assessment of forty-five (45) demerits to Mr. N. Nasraoui.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Corporation received a complaint of conduct unbecoming by another employee and consequently investigated the complaint.
The Corporation submits that Mr. Nasraoui was in violation of the Corporation’s Code of Conduct and policies and the discipline imposed was warranted and justified.
(SGD.) R. FITZGERALD (SGD.) B. A. BLAIR
NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE SR. ADVISOR, LABOUR RELATIONS
There appeared on behalf of the Corporation:
B. A. Blair –
Sr. Advisor, Labour Relations,
L. Selesnic –
Manager, Customer Experience,
There appeared on behalf of the
R. Fitzgerald –
D. Andru –
N. E. Nasraoui – Grievor
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The Corporation alleges that the grievor violated its code of conduct by engaging in the harassment of a fellow employee, to an extreme and unacceptable degree. The grievor has worked at the Corporation’s Toronto Maintenance Centre in Mimico as a stock checker since April of 2003. At that time he was returned to work following a decision in CROA 3315 which dealt with his previous discharge for the accumulation of demerits following a physical altercation with another employee. At the Mimico location he worked with a number of employees, including Mr. Steve Bynoe, who is also a stock checker at the Toronto Maintenance Centre.
record before the Arbitrator confirms that there was some previous history of
harassment of Mr. Bynoe by the grievor. On
… Nourr said it was all in fun and then pretty much denied it. I advised him he may think it is all in fun however it is considered harassment as Steve does not feel it is “all in fun”, he doesn’t like it and his comments are not welcome. Nourr agreed to leave Steve alone, make no more personal comments and to work together on a business level.
as the events of
Regrettably, the incident here under examination must be characterized as one of disturbing recidivism on the part of the grievor. As one who was returned to work following an act of violence as a result of a prior arbitration, and who was later reminded of the importance of not harassing Mr. Bynoe, the grievor appears to have learned nothing of the importance of maintaining respect for fellow employees. On the whole, I am satisfied that in the circumstances the assessment of forty-five demerits was appropriate, and should not be disturbed. Nor does the overlap of discipline herein with the discipline reviewed in CROA&DR 3994 constitute double jeopardy, as two distinct heads of misconduct are involved.
For the foregoing reasons the grievance is dismissed.