SHP - 13
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES’ DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO. 4
RE:GRIEVANCE OF R. STRANGE
SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill
APPEARING FOR THE UNION:
J. H. Clark
M. McClenaghan and others
APPEARING FOR THE COMPANY:
A hearing in this matter was held in
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACT
Mr. R. Strange was instructed to remove an injector from a locomotive situated outside the shop. Mr. Strange requested that the locomotive be placed inside the shop so he could perform the work. Mr. Strange was subsequently suspended for five days.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Company claims Mr. Strange was guilty of insubordination by not performing the work outside. The Union claims the Company ignored the terms of RuLe 38.1.
Rule 38.1 provides as follows:
Employees will not be required to work on engines or cars outside of shops during inclement weather, if shop room and pits are available. This does not apply to work in engine cabs or emergency work on engines or cars set out, or attached to trains.
Now the weather on the day in question was not "inclement". The temperature was about 28 ° F. at the time, so that it was cold, but it was not raining or snowing and the winds were light. The task required to be performed would be in an enclosed corridor in the engine. Even if the grievor did not have outdoor work clothes available, the amount of time which could be required was, in the Company’s estimate, about five minutes. Even assuming that this time referred only to the actual task, and not the preparation, collection of tools and the like, it remains that it was a short job; even if the engine had been brought inside it would remain cool inside the enclosure, but as it was the engine was blocked by a disabled engine, and the work of bringing it inside would be far more disruptive and time consuming that the prompt performance by the grievor of his assigned task.
The instruction given the grievor was made clear to him, and was repeated. It was a proper direction, it was not in violation of Rule 38.1, and it did not subject the grievor to any unreasonable risk of harm, or even of a degree of severe discomfort going beyond the occasional requirements of his work. It was an instruction which ought to have been carried out, and the grievor was subject to discipline for failing to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
DATED at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 1975.
(sgd.) J. F. W. Weatherill