Canadian Railroads > CP to appeal order to reinstate coke user

CALGARY, July 16, 2014 /CNW/ - Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (TSX/NYSE: CP) announced today it will be asking the Superior Court of Quebec to stay a July 14, 2014 decision by the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration (CROA), which ruled a locomotive engineer, who consumed cocaine at a time and of a quantity which could impact his duties, must be reinstated.

CP also announced it will be appealing the agency's order to the Superior Court of Quebec asking it to overturn the decision.

The CROA decision stems from an incident in December, 2012 in which the crew, operating a freight train, committed a serious rules violation. The crew was drug tested following the incident and the arbitrator found that the results indicated that the engineer had consumed cocaine. Nevertheless, the arbitrator ordered that the employee be reinstated.

"The Arbitrator's decision is an outrage and, as a railroader, I am appalled we would be forced to place this employee back in the cab of a locomotive. On my watch, this individual will not operate a locomotive," said E. Hunter Harrison, CP's Chief Executive Officer. "The decision sets a dangerous precedent and is grossly unacceptable for the safe operation of a railway."

Harrison said CP has a vigorous zero-tolerance drug and alcohol program, but companies in Canada are limited under Canadian law as random drug and alcohol testing is prohibited.

"This decision highlights the need for further public debate regarding the rights of an individual when employed in positions involving the safety of the public. Companies in Canada need the ability to carry-out random drug tests as safety should trump the rights of any individual who makes the dangerous choice to place themselves, their coworkers and the general public at risk," said Harrison, who noted railroads in the United States are required by Federal law to perform random drug tests.

BobE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Harrison said CP has a vigorous zero-tolerance
> drug and alcohol program, but companies in Canada
> are limited under Canadian law as random drug and
> alcohol testing is prohibited.
>
>
Wow! This is news to me. When I worked for BHP Billiton up in the Pilbara they randomly tested anybody every day. They even picked on the namby-pamby, shiny assed Accountants (I am speaking of myself). Is this some kind of "human rights" do gooder thing? And yet some Newbie (FNG) in Canada Customs Vancouver has the right to tear through my underwear dead certain and determined that I am some kind of drug mule.

Rick



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/14 14:49 by rschonfelder.

Canada is in the ridiculous situation of criminals and other wrong-doers having more rights than their victims or the general public.
Thank you Pierre Trudeau.

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

Seems to me that the only people who have a problem with random testing are the people who have a drug/alcohol use problem. Perhaps this will finally lead to Canada realizing that workers in highly safety critical positions need to be clean/sober and that a critical tool in rooting out those who aren't is testing???

For everyone's sake let's hope so.

Ross Rowland

rschonfelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BobE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >> Harrison said CP has a vigorous zero-tolerance
> > drug and alcohol program, but companies in
> Canada
> > are limited under Canadian law as random drug
> and
> > alcohol testing is prohibited.
> >
> >
> Wow! This is news to me. When I worked for BHP
> Billiton up in the Pilbara they randomly tested
> anybody every day. They even picked on the
> namby-pamby, shiny assed Accountants. Is this
> some kind of "human rights" do gooder thing? And
> yet some Newbie (FNG) in Canada Customs Vancouver
> has the right to tear through my underwear dead
> certain and determined that I am some kind of drug
> mule.
>
> Rick

Namby-pamby shiny assed Accountants??? You've now insulted a number of TO members. Congratulations.

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems to me that the only people who have a
> problem with random testing are the people who
> have a drug/alcohol use problem.

So how far up the "food chain" does this random testing requirement extend?

Can you explain why Wall Street Stock Brokers, doctors, corporate CEOs, Congressmen, Barrack Obama and the Supreme Court justices (to name a few) don't have to pee in a bottle?

From what I've seen, it appears to be heavily slanted in only applying to schedule (union) employees. Gee, what a surprise . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/14 06:20 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

There's more to this story than meets the eye.

The Canadian railways and the unions jointly fund their own arbitration panel, the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration.

This was established because of the large number of workplace arbitrations in the railway industry were plugging up the arbitration process for all industries in Canada.

The Federal Government and the Legal system chastised the railway industry for initiating more grievences that the norm in all other industries, and allowed for the establishment of CROA to remedy the situation.

The CROA has a history of making fair and balanced decisions that meet the test of legality.

For the CP and Mr.Harrison to criticize the CROA is the equivalent of saying that they don't respect the rule of law.

Mr.Harrison just upset a whole number of lawyers and judges for questioning the decisions of a part of the legal system.

Expect Mr.Harrison's decisions to become closely watched also. I wouldn't be double parking in downtown Calgary, EHH

It looks like the CROA is very similar to the Railway Labor Act here in the States.

I know of at least one employee who had an alcohol problem and was re-instated by the Arbitration Board. The Board considers the work history of the employee and whether or not he has had previous "problems in the workplace." If the employee has had a long, unblemished career, there's a good chance he'll be reinstated --- even for a Rule G violation --- but probably without back-pay.

Believe it or not, the RLA and CROA are not bad arrangements, actually.

Peeing in a bottle generally applies to workers in safety-sensitive jobs -- especially those where a major screw-up would put the general public's safety at risk (e.g., by a train derailment). That's why the banksters, lawyers, President, etc. aren't subject to random drug testing.

I wonder, though, if cops are.

In the US, cops are subject to drug testing after critical incidents. Vehicle accidents, firearms discharges, etc. Can't say for Canada.

PGR94 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the US, cops are subject to drug testing after
> critical incidents. Vehicle accidents, firearms
> discharges, etc. Can't say for Canada.


Testing is also moving from peeing in a bottle to taking a lock of your hair. That expands the so called safe period from a week to about six weeks to flush the traces out of your system and get two haircuts. (The hair nearest the scalp gets the traces, and then grows out longer. No idea of how they handle bald guys, but there's at least one way...)

"For the CP and Mr.Harrison to criticize the CROA is the equivalent of saying that they don't respect the rule of law."


Has there ever been any fear that he would respect anyone or any entity ?

Bill Miller
Galt, ON

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No idea of how
> they handle bald guys, but there's at least one
> way...)

Its actually really simple. You better have a hair available someone that they can test or you are out of a job. I knew this smart ass (wasn't a friend) that decided to shave EVERYTHING so they couldn't test him. When he was up for a random, he was gone.

e-grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "For the CP and Mr.Harrison to criticize the CROA
> is the equivalent of saying that they don't
> respect the rule of law."
>



If an appeal is permissible in the process, then his statement is not at all disrespectful of the rule of law....it's following the process. It is, however, and most definitively, disrespectful of the arbitration personnel who rendered the decision.

That said, who among you will volunteer to be a conductor on a train run by a known cocaine user who committed a serious rules violation last time he ran?

BobE

EHH has a history of refusing to back down from a decision made by himself or his close subordinates, even when the law is clearly on the side of the appellant. This has cost the corporations he directs thousands of dollars in compensation and back pay.

He also lacks any compassion for rank and file employees, even though he started as a carman for the SLSF and has been fired himself by a major US railroad.

When he was CEO of CN, he defended a position taken "under his watch" to dismiss several female operating employees who were off on maternity leave.

Working as a running trades employee on CN has long involved "following the work" , relocating around the system to locations where you have seniority to work. Since the 1970's, a fact of life in train service is that an operating employee can expect to have to relocate several times across the country.

CN pioneered hiring women as conductors and yard employees in Canada. In the late 1980's, all working and professional women were given the right to paid maternity leave paid by the Canadian Government. This change involved a whole series of rights and responsibilities, and has been tested in all its aspects by a variety of legal challenges. There is enough case law about this that any employer and employee should have a thorough understanding.

The CN case involved several employees that did not "follow the work" while they were on maternity leave and when they failed to report for duty at the required location , they were terminated by CN.

CN was reminded of the employment responsibilities regarding maternity leave, and instead of complying with the law, they chose to fight the case to the highest courts in the land. It took over three years to resolve the issue in favour of the employees.
These employees and their young children were denied unemployment benefits during this time and ended up being supported financially by their co-workers. Even so, there were times when these women and their children went hungry. Most of this was due to the stubbornness of one man in charge of the CN. To stand on principal is one thing, but to cause hardship to a child is another.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/14 09:43 by eminence_grise.

Maternity law is exceptionally difficult to implement in the real world, where rights and privileges have evolved in ways that aren't always consistent with the law.

In particular, for the US, the determination of "disabled" for purposes of the law may differ between a woman's doctor and the company's physician. Climbing up into a locomotive may be impossible for one person two months pregnant, but easy for another person seven months pregnant. One is disabled, the other is not, under the law. On a railroad, unlike many other situations, transferring a person to some kind of light duty work may create craft issues.

EHH tends to prefer to draw lines in the sand, and fight over the line. Whether or not it's in the right place, or even makes much long term sense. Not a good overall way to go through life, but it's worked profitably for him.

I wonder how many other railroad CEO's feel the need to have bodyguards. You know you're not popular with the rank and file when that happens.

Posted from iPhone

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder how many other railroad CEO's feel the
> need to have bodyguards. You know you're not
> popular with the rank and file when that happens.
>
> Posted from iPhone


Quite a few CEOs have bodyguards. Many also have 24/7 home security guards as well. Many are also required to use private aircraft, too.

Here in NJ, the CEO of an Exxon division was kidnapped in his own drive way and held for ransom a decade ago. The kidnappers killed the guy after the ransom was paid. That caused a lot of companies to reconsider their security arrangements.

There's a good market here in NJ and NY for retired police officers / state troopers etc as executive drivers. In this very tough to get a hand gun permit state, they have 'em...

Frontrunner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Its spell B A R O C K!!!!


Huh? I Googled BAROCK and from what I can figure out it is an alternate spelling of "baroque" which is often equated with a semi-medieval form of music.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque
you can listen to it here: http://tunein.com/radio/Barock-Music-s119655/

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

I should explain what CROA "Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration" is.

It is a legal practice set up to arbitrate grievances in the railway industry in Canada. It is a non-Government organisation (NGO) jointly funded by the railways and the unions. NGO's have an established role in governance and law in Canada. (UK equivalent QANGO)

The arbitrator is a practicing lawyer who sets out part of his time to deal with railway arbitrations, and is selected by the participants in the CROA.

EHH is free to criticise the CROA as the corporation he directs helps fund the CROA.

The lawyer who acts as arbitrator may also criticise EHH within the bounds of the legal practice as an arbitrator and a lawyer. This may be what is making headlines. Outside the function of arbitration, the CROA is in the business of selling its services to its clients and it is important that the clients believe in the impartiality and veracity of the CROA decisions.

The Canadian Ministry of Labour oversees all mediation and arbitration related to industry in Canada, and publishes a synopsis of all disputes on a frequent basis. The "Labour Gazette" is a public document available through subscription. The Ministry and its agents can and do write articles and critiques on the performance of both industries and worker organisations. A criticism aimed at the railway industry is that it exceeds the norm in terms of issues going to arbitration. The CROA was set up to remedy this situation.

During the recent tenure of a certain railway CEO on both CN and CP, there has been a huge spike in the number of issues going to arbitration and it has been suggested that this individual is deliberately clogging up the para-legal and legal system to delay justice to those affected and clog up the system so as to render it less effective. "Wasting this Court's time when there are many other pressing legal issues" would apply.

CROA decisions have to withstand the test of law within the Provincial and Federal Courts, however for a CROA participant to appeal a decision beyond arbitration is rare. Part of the reason the CROA participants fund the arbitrator is to avoid using the court system, and to expedite decisions where a persons welfare is concerned.

A UK term for an individual who thinks himself/herself above the legal system designed for everyone is a "scofflaw".

Short version of this "That good ole boy done p---ed off the lawyers by sticking his nose into things he don't understand".



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/14 11:31 by eminence_grise.