CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 4073
BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION CANADA INC.
suspension assessed against M. Saliba following an incident on
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
agreed to reduce the suspension to two (2) days on
(SGD.) G. MACPHERSON (SGD.) D. MACHELL
GENERAL CHAIRMAN GENERAL MANAGER
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
M. Horvat –
A. Brown –
Manager, Human Resources,
D. Machell –
S. Seth –
Supervisor, Human Resources,
There appeared on behalf of the
D. Ellickson –
G. MacPherson –
M. Saliba – Grievor
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
With respect to
this grievance there is no substantial dispute as to the facts. The grievor was
serving as the Customer Service Ambassador (CSA) on GO Train 439 on the morning
Following an investigation the grievor was assessed a three day suspension. The letter of notification, dated June 6, reads, in part, as follows:
The results of this investigation have been reviewed and it has been determined that by not deploying the ramp for a last minute customer you failed to exercise the good judgement that is required of you as a Customer Service Ambassador. Blocking a customer who was right at the door is an extremely poor and reprehensible course of action to take in your position, not to mention that is directly affects the reputation of GO/BTNA.
stresses that the very fact incident which gave rise to this discipline was
addressed in the grievor’s charter training, something he had apparently undergone
Counsel for the
carefully reviewed the evidence the Arbitrator has difficulty with the position
advanced by the
As a general rule arbitrators tend not to “fine tune” the length of a discipline if the discipline awarded is judged to be within the appropriate range of penalty for the impugned actions of the employee. In the instant case, however, I believe there are mitigating factors which would justify a different approach. Firstly, it should be noted that the grievor, hired in 2008, had never previously been disciplined. Secondly, in my view, the stress of the rush hour situation in which the grievor found himself, and the need to make a judgement call in a short time, can fairly be viewed as a mitigating factor to be taken into account. While these elements do not justify the grievor’s actions, they should be given mitigating value in assessing the appropriate penalty.
Bearing in mind that the purpose of discipline is to communicate for the purposes of promoting rehabilitation, I am satisfied that a one day suspension would have been amply sufficient in the circumstances to convey to Mr. Saliba the need to be more courteous and/or generous in dealing with late arriving passengers. The grievance is therefore allowed, in part. The Arbitrator directs that a one day suspension be substituted for the two day suspension assessed against the grievor. He shall be compensated for the difference in all wages and benefits lost.