SHP 150

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN PACIFIC LIMITED

(the "Company")

AND

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY SHOPCRAFT EMPLOYEES AND ALLIED WORKERS

(the "Union")

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF R. CHRETIEN

SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill

 

 

There appeared on behalf of the Union:

J. W. Asprey

P. E. Perreault

 

 

And on behalf of the Company:

J. H. Blotsky

D. J. David

 

 

A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal on February 23, 1984.

 

 

AWARD

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

DISPUTE

Dismissal of Carman Robert Chretien.

JOINT STATEMENT OF FACT

Glen Yard Carman Robert Chretien was dismissed from the service of CP Rail on May 18, 1983:

"... pour avoir frauduleusement fait poinçonner votre carte de temps par un confrère de travail (CC18) deux heures après votre départ le 13 et 14 avril 1983 et pour avoir été trouvé en possession de matériel appartenant à la compagnie, sans autorisation, à votre domicile, le 15 avril 1983".

JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE

It is the position of the Union that the Company, in dismissing Mr. Chrétien from the service, treated him unjustly.

The Company denies the claim.

The grievor was hired by the company as a Carman Helper in December, 1974, being promoted to Carman in February, 1977. He was discharged on May 18, 1983, for the reasons set out in the Joint Statement. The issue is whether or not the grievor was discharged for just cause.

There is no substantial dispute as to the facts. There would appear to have been a number of occasions on which the grievorís conduct was improper, but the charges against him are of two sorts. One is that on April 13, 1983, and again on April 14, the grievor had another employee punch out his time card for him, while the grievor left work early, without authorization. The grievor, whose shift was from 1530 to 2330 hours, left work on each occasion at about 1900. He had previously arranged with another employee that the latter would punch out his time card for him, and the other employee did so, at 2330. This was admitted by the grievor, who acknowledged that he had no authorization to leave. He had, then attempted to defraud the company of two hoursí worth of pay, on two occasions.

Clearly what the grievor did was wrong, and he of course knew it to be so. He offered no explanation. There can be no doubt that the grievor was subject to severe discipline for this serious of fence. It is possible that given the grievorís length of service and his apparently clear record (the company did not rely on any disciplinary record, although it appears that the grievor had been assessed ten demerits for poor timekeeping), some penalty less than discharge may have been appropriate, but it is not necessary to decide that point, given the other facts of this case.

The second sort of charges against the grievor relate either to the outright theft of company property, or to the purchase of stolen goods, knowing them to have been the property of the employer. The grievor was, as his own statement makes clear, guilty of both of these offences. On April 15, 1983, on a search of the grievorís home made pursuant to a search warrant, a very substantial quantity of a wide variety of goods belonging to the company was found. The grievor acknowledged that he had simply taken some of these goods, accumulating them in a closet at work over a period of time. Others the grievor said that he had purchased from a former employee of the company. He knew that these were goods of a sort which the company did not sell, and it is clear that he must have known they had been stolen from the company.

From the material before me it is clear that for some time the grievor had been stealing the companyís property, and that he had been buying property known to have been stolen from the company. His only excuse was that he wanted these items for his own use. This is a case of deliberate theft over a prolonged period of time.

There can be no doubt that the company was justified in discharging the employee, and I so find.

In the circumstances, there was just cause for the companyís action. The grievance is therefore dismissed.

DATED AT TORONTO, this 7th day of March, 1984.

(signed) J. F. W. Weatherill

Arbitrator