An arbitrator has upheld the 30-day and 60-day suspensions of an Alstom Transport Canada employee involved in two separate train derailments, rejecting union claims that the discipline was excessive and violated principles of progressive discipline.
In the decision released by the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CROA), Arbitrator James Cameron dismissed grievances filed by the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) on behalf of N.S., who had challenged the severity of the suspensions imposed following incidents in December 2021 and June 2023.
The TCRC argued that the suspensions were too harsh and did not reflect an educational, corrective approach. However, the arbitrator found the company’s disciplinary actions reasonable, citing the seriousness of Spinelli’s actions and the need for progressive discipline.
First derailment: 30-day suspension
The first incident, which occurred on Dec. 15, 2021, resulted in N.S. receiving a 30-day suspension without pay. According to the company’s discipline letter, N.S. and his teammate were found responsible for violating Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) Rule 564, which led to the derailment of locomotive AMT 1359 near mile 51.3 of the St-Hyacinthe subdivision.
The derailment caused significant damage to the track and equipment and disrupted rail operations. N.S.’s disciplinary record remained clean until this incident, and the company emphasized that his failure to identify and adjust the necessary switches contributed to the derailment.
N.S. acknowledged his mistake during the investigation, admitting that he and his teammate “could have done things very differently.” He also expressed remorse and a willingness to improve, noting that they focused on “the wrong things instead of focusing on what we should have been.”
The union argued that the 30-day suspension was excessive and should have been reduced or replaced with an educational approach, allowing N.S. to share his experience with colleagues as a corrective measure. The union contended that the incident was a result of miscommunication and insufficient briefing, not negligence.
However, the company maintained that the suspension was appropriate given the severity of the violation and the damage caused. The arbitrator agreed, stating, “some form of serious discipline is appropriate in the circumstances” and that a 30-day suspension fell within the range of reasonable penalties for such infractions.
Second derailment: 60-day suspension
The second derailment, which occurred on June 27, 2023, resulted in N.S. being suspended for 60 days. During this incident, N.S. violated CROR Rule 104 when he threw a switch while the train was still over it, causing another derailment in the Thériault marshalling yard.
In his decision, Arbitrator Cameron noted that N.S. had been disciplined for a similar violation just 20 months earlier. While he had accepted responsibility for the derailment and provided a detailed account of what had happened, the company viewed the incident as a continuation of unsafe practices.
The union argued that the 60-day suspension was too severe and that N.S. should not have been penalized so harshly for a second infraction. It also claimed that the company had mishandled the grievance process by failing to respond to the union’s Step 2 grievance within the required timeframe.
The company, however, countered that the grievance was filed late, and the collective agreement’s strict timelines should apply. The arbitrator sided with the company on this procedural matter, stating that the union had missed the deadline for filing the grievance, and as such, the grievance must be dismissed.
Despite this procedural ruling, the arbitrator also addressed the merits of the case, concluding that even if the grievance had been filed on time, the 60-day suspension was justified.
“Progressive discipline calls for a more severe sanction for a second switching violation in such a short time,” Cameron wrote. He further noted that “discipline in the 30-60 day range had been imposed by CROA arbitrators for a first such infraction,” and a 60-day suspension for a second violation was “not unreasonable.”
Union’s push for progressive discipline rejected
Throughout both cases, the union emphasized the importance of progressive discipline, arguing that N.S.’s willingness to take responsibility for his actions and learn from his mistakes should have resulted in a lesser penalty. The union contended that discipline should be corrective rather than punitive, particularly in instances where the employee shows remorse and a desire to improve.
However, the arbitrator found that the violations were serious enough to warrant the suspensions imposed by the company. “While arguments can be made that the penalty should be greater than 30 days but not as high as 60 days,” Cameron stated, “I do not find that the company decision to impose a 60-day suspension for a second infraction to be unreasonable in the circumstances.”
For more information, see Alstom Transport Canada Inc. v Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2024 CanLII 87116 (CA LA).
