SHP Ė 142




(the "Company")



(The "Union")




SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill



There appeared on behalf of the Company:

J. A. Blotsky

D. J. David

And on behalf of the Union:

J. W. Asprey

W. Redhead


A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal on May 14, 1981.




The Dispute and Joint Statement of fact and Issue in this matter are as follows:


Dismissal of Electrician S. Schaydleur for accumulation

of demerit marks.


St. Luc Diesel Shop Electrician, Serge Schaydleur, employee number 278611, was assessed 20 demerit marks for "Piètre assiduité due à votre absence au travail le 13 et 15 août, le 21, 24, 25 et 26 septembre et le 4 et 9 octobre 1982 à líatelier diesel de Saint-Luc" which resulted, in his dismissal for accumulation of demerit marks.


It is the position of the Union that Mr. Schaydleur was treated unjustly.

It is the position of the Company that the discipline assessed to Mr. Schaydleur was warranted in the circumstances and therefore, because his discipline record exceeded 60 demerit marks, he was properly dismissed.

The first question to be determined is whether or not the grievor was properly assessed discipline in respect of his absence from work on the dates mentioned. Subject to the determination of that issue, the matter of discharge will be considered. Prior to the assessment of discipline in this case, the grievorís record stood at 50 demerits.

The absences for which the grievor was disciplined in this case fall into three groups. With respect to the first of these, the 13th and 15th of August, 1982, it is acknowledged that the grievor did not report to work on these days. At his investigation (in October), the grievor could not recall the reasons for his failure to report on those days, which is perhaps not surprising in view of the lapse of time. The company records indicate, that the grievor called on August 13 to say that he would not report for work due to illness. There is apparently no record of his having made such a call in respect of August 15. The company appears not to have sought any corroboration of the grievorís statement that he was sick on August 13. In these circumstances, it would be my conclusion that the grievor would be subject to discipline only in respect of his unauthorized and unreported absence on August 15. He would, however, be subject to some discipline for that.

The second group of absences occurred in September, 1982. The company acknowledges that discipline in respect of September 21 was in error, as the grievor was on layoff on that day. On July 29 the grievor received a lay-off notice advising him that he would be laid off from August 24 until September 21. Prior to that, the grievor was on vacation. The grievor seems to have had some question as to the amount of vacation to, which he was entitled. He did not seek clarification of that, however, and the notice of layoff was quite clear in stating that the grievor was to return to work on the afternoon of September 23. The grievor did not return then, and in fact was absent on September 23, 24, 25 and 26. He called the company on September 24, it seems (in the grievorís statement, he refers to calls on September 25 and 26), to say that he was sick and would be in the next day. In fact the grievor was not sick but was on vacation in South Carolina. At his investigation he stated that his return was delayed because of a storm. In any event the grievor did not advise the company of the true facts, and had not arranged his affairs so as to have proper assurance that he would be able to present himself for work. Clearly, discipline was properly imposed in respect of this absence.

The third group of absences are those of October, although they are otherwise unrelated. The grievor did not report for work on October 3, although it appears that he called to advise the company that he could not be at work because of illness. He, was apparently not asked to provide proof, and in my view, there was no occasion for discipline in respect of this instance.

On October 10, the grievor was absent from work due to car trouble when out of the city. He states that he called the company to advise of this. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, and there being nothing to suggest that the situation was one for which the grievor was responsible, or in which he had (as in the case of his vacation) failed to make reasonable plans for being at work on time, no discipline should be imposed in this respect.

While all of the allegations of improper absence have not been made out, others have been established, most notably the failure to report following layoff, on which occasion the grievor gave the company false information as to his situation. Any reduction in the twenty demerits assessed would, in my view, be slight. There can be no doubt that at the very least the assessment of ten demerits would have been justified.

There was, then, ground for the imposition of discipline. At the time, as I have said, the grievorís record stood at fifty demerits. Most of the entries in the grievorís discipline record relate to absenteeism. While it was contended that some of the previous entries in the discipline record were not justified, it is now too late for such a question to be raised, just as it would be too late for the company to assess additional discipline in respect of past alleged offences. With the assessment of discipline in the instant case, the grievorís record would come to at least sixty demerits and the grievor was subject to discharge. There was, I find, just cause for that action.

For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.


DATED AT TORONTO, this 6th day of June, 1983.


(signed) J. F. W. Weatherill