CN - CATS BROADCAST – TIME LIMITS ARBITRATION AWARD

I was recently advised that CN Rail has, which is unprecedented, issued a CATS message regarding the recent “time limit” arbitration decision. As such I offer the following for your consideration;

The arbitration award does not, in and by itself, dispose of any grievances that are in line for arbitration.

The previous process remains in place, the Company will raise a preliminary objection on time limits which will be addressed by the Arbitrator on a case by case basis.

GO-105 at all times complied with time limits through Steps 1, 2 and 3. GO-105, strategically, did not file to arbitration within 60 days on many cases given what it believed was past practice, estoppel and agreement (the Arbitrator ruled otherwise).

The position of GO-105 (not filing every case to arbitration) must be viewed in light of the existing arbitration process. One must consider, given the increase in grievances against CN Rail, how many case could have been arbitrated each year.

For example if 5 cases made the docket each month (which would be unusual) it would mean 55 cases each year (the arbitrator does not sit in August). The math clearly shows that of the thousands of grievances filed (in such a short period of time) only a fraction would have went to arbitration. To view it another way, had GO-105 filed to arbitration every case the maximum heard would have possibly reached 165 leaving thousand remaining unresolved.

Further, when considering that objections are to be heard first (which the Company does on most cases) the number of grievances heard at arbitration each year are further limited.

GO-105 viewed the situation as a serious matter to address. The Union filed a complaint to the CIRB in an attempt to persuade the Board that CN was intentionally “clogging” up the grievance process to severally limit the application of the Collective Agreement. Simply put, it was more advantageous for the Company to violate the Collective Agreement then abide by its provisions.

The “clogging” of the arbitration process was, in the Union’s view, strategic on the part of the Company. In this way, not only could the Company violate the Collective Agreement but limit any effective timely resolution at arbitration.

GO-105 assessed this situation and determined that it would proceed to address the more pressing issues of the membership rather than a “first-come-first served”. An example would be the issue regarding the pension.

Consider, for example, the many time claims that have been declined in comparison to the increase in discipline assessed in the context of the above noted problem. As with the pension, it goes to “Company” employee leverage. Loading an employee up with discipline is one way in which to control the worker. In other words, once an employees job is at risk the easier it is to control that person. The withholding of consent with the pension (a position being argued by the Company) is another application of this corporate ideology.

The situation, unfortunately, will remain, at least for the near future no matter who represents the membership. As many of you may recall this matter was on the negotiating table to be addressed (and was dropped) once the elected negotiators were removed from service.

Recently I was advised by one TCRC General Chairperson that he proceeded to a joint conference with the Company on 60 grievances. The Company refused to address one grievance. If all these grievances are filed to arbitration it will take years to resolve.

I fully expect this to be an issue when TCRC commences negotiations this year.

The above situation is real. It is no doubt one of the most pressing problems facing the membership and their leadership. CN, in my view, is out to limit the effectiveness of the Unions and their leadership, this to force compliance to its corporate ideological views.

Are there means in which to address these problems? The answer is yes. Although contract negotiations are one avenue I believe a more direct approach by way of the Remedy Provision (forcing Collective Agreement compliance), the CIRB and the Courts are a more timely and effective.

WHY DID THE COMPANY PUT OUT A CATS MESSAGE?

It is my personal opinion that the Company (which backed the UTU) now realizes the possibility that the former General Chs. and Vice-General Chs. may again be in a position to represent the membership, a situation that does not sit well with the Company.

Remember H. Harrison’s latest book. Recall the passage whereby he states that he has had to close terminals and go after the leadership so as to force change. Consider these passages when viewing the CATS message.

Remember the gains achieved in the last few rounds of negotiations (not the FOS) such as;

Remedy Provision
PL days
“EO” – 48 hours time off
Full vacation entitlement etc.

Consider the grievances filed against the Company with respect to the Pension and Drug and Alcohol testing.

Consider how steadfast the former Gen. Chs. and Vice-Gen. Chs. were against CN Rail when advocating for the membership.

The Company, I believe, has now realized that the UTU is out and the TCRC are in. The membership will once again choose their representatives.

It is when considering all of the above that you will find the true motives of the Company with respect to the above noted question.

Rex Beatty