The arbitrator found that the Grievor, a long-service employee with CPKC, engaged in misconduct during a safety briefing when he reacted angrily to the company's decision to eliminate the longstanding morning break. The arbitrator accepted that the Grievor likely told his supervisor to “fuck off” and stated that management did nothing for employees- conduct that was disrespectful and warranted discipline. However, the arbitrator concluded that his comments were an emotional outburst made in the context of a contentious meeting rather than harassment or intimidation.

In assessing the appropriateness of the dismissal, the arbitrator considered several mitigating factors, including the Grievor's lengthy service, health issues, workplace stress, and his perception that he was being unfairly targeted by management. The evidence also showed that many employees were upset about the removal of the break, although the Grievor was the only employee disciplined. The arbitrator determined that discharge was an excessive penalty and substituted the dismissal with a five-day suspension and ordered the Grievor's immediate reinstatement.

As Mechanical employee from Weston Shops was assessed 20 demerits after failing to attend a scheduled disciplinary investigation. The Grievor called the Company on the day of the meeting and advised that he was sick and unable to attend. During a subsequent investigation, he explained that he was experiencing significant anxiety, sleep problems, and other health concerns, which he believed were being aggravated by his workplace environment and interactions with certain supervisors. The Company concluded that his absence was culpable and disciplined him for failing to attend the investigation.

The Union argued that the Grievor had complied with the collective agreement by properly reporting his illness and that the Company failed to establish that his absence was misconduct. It maintained that if the Company doubted the legitimacy of his illness, it should have requested medical documentation or made further inquiries. The Company, on the other hand, argued that the Grievor's explanations were not credible, were unsupported by medical evidence, and did not justify missing a properly scheduled investigation.

The arbitrator allowed the Union's grievance and concluded that the Grievor had fulfilled his obligations by notifying the Company that he was sick and that, once he raised medical and mental health concerns, the Company had a duty to investigate those concerns further if it questioned their validity. Because the Company did not seek additional medical information before imposing discipline, it failed to establish just cause. As a result, the grievance was upheld and the discipline removed.

The grievance concerned whether the 15 demerits assessed against the Grievor for smoking in a non-designated area while not on an authorized break were excessive.

The Union accepted that some discipline was justified but argued that the penalty was too severe and punitive rather than corrective. It emphasized several mitigating factors, including the Grievor’s honesty, length of service, generally good disciplinary record, and the relatively minor nature of the violation. The Union maintained that coaching or a lesser corrective measure would have been more appropriate.

After applying the William Scott test, the arbitrator found that the Grievor knowingly violated a clear workplace policy and either knew or should have known that smoking was only allowed in designated areas and during designated breaks. The arbitrator concluded that the Company acted reasonably in imposing 15 demerits and that the penalty was appropriate in the circumstances and dismissed the grievance.

The grievance concerned a mechanical employee from Weston Shops who received 15 demerit points for violating the Employer’s Attendance Management Policy after being absent for a total of 44.25 hours between August and October 2019. During the investigation, the Grievor consistently explained that most of his absences were due to stress, anxiety, and mental health issues, although he had not provided medical documentation to support those absences. The Employer argued that the pattern of absences, many of which occurred adjacent to weekends or holidays, justified discipline and that the Grievor had failed to provide adequate medical evidence despite claiming to be under a doctor’s care.

The Union maintained that the absences were medically related and therefore non-culpable. It argued the Grievor had informed the Employer of his mental health condition, complied with the collective agreement’s requirement to report absences, and indicated that he was receiving treatment from his physician. The Union further contended that once the Employer became aware of a potential medical issue, it had a duty to make further inquiries or request supporting documentation rather than presume misconduct.

The arbitrator found that the Grievor was suffering from legitimate medical conditions and that the Employer had enough information to trigger a duty to inquire further into his circumstances. By failing to seek additional medical information or clarification after the Grievor raised his health concerns, the Employer did not adequately investigate whether the absences were medically justified. As a result, the arbitrator concluded that discipline was not warranted, granted the grievance, and ordered the removal of the 15 demerit points from the Grievor’s record.

The arbitrator heard multiple grievances arising from CN’s dismissal of Mr. B following an October 16, 2024 workplace incident and a positive post-incident drug test.

During a job involving an apprentice, Mr. S, Mr. B failed to follow several critical safety procedures, including conducting a proper job briefing and obtaining track protection. As a result, Mr. S was struck by a locomotive and suffered a broken ankle. CN assessed 60 demerits for the safety violations and terminated Mr. B based on the resulting accumulation of demerit points. While the arbitrator found the incident extremely serious and accepted that discipline was warranted, he concluded that 60 demerits was excessive when compared with similar cases. The penalty was reduced to 35 demerits, leaving Mr. B with a total of 55 demerits and removing the automatic dismissal based on the demerit system.

The second issue concerned Mr. B’s positive THC test, which showed a level approximately ten times higher than CN’s allowable threshold. After his dismissal, Mr. B was diagnosed with Cannabis Use Disorder by his family physician and undertook extensive rehabilitation, including counselling, addiction treatment programs, and Narcotics Anonymous participation. The union argued that Mr. B suffered from a disability and that CN failed to meet its duty to accommodate. The arbitrator accepted the post-dismissal medical evidence, finding it relevant to determining whether the dismissal was appropriate and concluding that Mr. B did suffer from a disability at the time of the incident.

The arbitrator found that the union had established prima facie discrimination because Mr. B’s addiction was a factor in the conduct that led to his termination. Once that was established, CN had the burden to show that accommodating Mr. B would cause undue hardship. The arbitrator concluded that CN focused primarily on justifying discipline and failed to adequately investigate or assess accommodation options. As a result, CN did not prove undue hardship. Mr. B was therefore reinstated without back pay or benefits, subject to strict conditions including medical clearance to return to work, two years of random drug and alcohol testing, continued abstinence from impairing substances, ongoing participation in recovery supports, and potential termination if he breaches those conditions.