Canadian National Railway (CN) has been ordered to reinstate a long-serving employee with 22 years of experience to his original position after the company failed to adequately accommodate his medical restrictions.
The arbitrator found that CN did not sufficiently justify its refusal to return R.M. to his home position as a Signals and Communication (S&C) Maintainer, despite evidence that he had successfully performed the role for nearly a decade under similar restrictions.
Background
The arbitration case stemmed from CN’s initial decision to terminate R.M.’s employment in August 2022, citing alleged inappropriate comments he purportedly made — claims that were solely based on an email from another employee.
R.M. categorically denied making those remarks during the company’s investigation, and in a previous arbitration (AH837), it was determined that CN had failed to meet the burden of proof required to justify his dismissal. The arbitrator at that time ordered CN to reinstate R.M.
Upon R.M.’s return to work in early 2024, CN instead offered him three non-bargaining unit positions, citing medical restrictions that had been documented in a 2013 injury as the reason for not reinstating him to his original role. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), representing R.M., argued that these restrictions had been in place for years and had never previously prevented him from fulfilling his duties at MacMillan Yard.
According to the ruling, R.M.’s physician confirmed that while some restrictions, such as minimizing kneeling and crouching, were necessary, they did not preclude him from performing his job as an S&C Maintainer. The physician’s report emphasized, “I do not see a medical reason as to why (R.M.) cannot continue in his position… I would recommend that he return to this position without further delay.”
Despite this medical opinion and R.M.’s proven track record of performing his duties under similar conditions, CN rejected his request to return to his previous role. Instead, the company cited a 2020 physical demands analysis and deemed his medical restrictions incompatible with the duties of an S&C Maintainer, offering alternative positions that were located far from his home and involved significant changes to his schedule.
Criticism from arbitrator
The arbitrator’s ruling criticized CN for not properly considering whether R.M. could be accommodated in his original position, noting that the company failed to explore all reasonable accommodation options, such as conducting a field assessment, which was suggested by CN’s own Occupational Health Services (OHS). The arbitrator also questioned why CN discounted R.M.’s physician’s opinion without seeking further medical clarification or discussing the matter with the IBEW.
“The evidence does not support CN’s decision to refuse to reinstate (R.M.) back to his home position,” the arbitrator wrote, pointing out that the restrictions in place were similar to those in 2013 when CN had successfully accommodated R.M. in the same role. The ruling emphasized that the accommodation process should first explore the possibility of the employee returning to their original position, unless there is a clear and justifiable reason not to.
The arbitrator ordered CN to reinstate R.M. to his position as an S&C Maintainer at MacMillan Yard and to compensate him for the delay in his reinstatement, including interest.
The arbitrator, Graham J. Clarke, concluded by stating, “For CN to reject (his) medical evidence, one would expect to find contrary medical opinions. Instead, the OHS records indicate that (R.M.) had been doing the essential tasks of his position for nine years, despite his restrictions.”
For more information, see International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (System Council No. 11) v Canadian National Railway Company, 2024 CanLII 80301 (CA LA).
