Summary of Issue: Railway Workers

Decision 69228 Full Text of Decision 69228

The claimant, a locomative engineer, was in the locomotive and operating the train. Despite a conversation with the conductor who had ultimate responsibility for the train, the locomotive went through a red light prohibiting passage and travelled at a speed of approximately 10 miles an hour for 4,000 feet. To contend that there was no misconduct and simply distraction trivializes the events that took place in the locomotive at the time the claimant should be alert and understand his responsibilities. The argument that lack of awareness of what happened is an excuse when there was an explicit failure to meet his contractual obligation is unacceptable. The Board trivialized the facts in this case and concerned itself with the severity of the sanction, a question not within its jurisdiction.

Decision 67626 Full Text of Decision 67626

The claimant, who worked as a train conductor, reported to work with alcohol on his breath. He therefore had to undergo a breathalyser test, which was positive for alcohol. The employer's policy, with which the claimant was familiar, allowed zero tolerance for alcohol or other intoxicants while on duty. The claimant admitted that he was aware of the employer's zero tolerance policy, and knew that a positive test meant automatic dismissal.

Decision 30162 Full Text of Decision 30162

The claimant neglected to obtain the authorization to proceed from the superintendent responsible for the rail right-of-way; claims technical defect of the walkie-talkie. The Umpire held that, in forgetting, there is no psychological element required to conclude on the wilful character of the Act. No misconduct.

Decision 28543 Full Text of Decision 28543

Held that the brakeman, the subordinate employee in a crew of five composed of a conductor, an assistant conductor and 2 mechanics, does not have to bear the responsibility of his superiors who failed to obtain the clearance to proceed from the track foreman.

Decision 27845 Full Text of Decision 27845

I consider claimant's use of alcohol until 2:30 a.m. (4 hours before reporting time) to be a wilful act tantamount to a wilful refusal to obey a reasonable, lawful rule of the railway industry.

Decision 27655 Full Text of Decision 27655

The Board's decision refers to claimant's negligence in performance of his duties. Board concluded that it found no "willful intent to commit a wrongdoing" on claimant's part. I do not conclude that the Board erred or reached its decision perversely or capriciously or without regard to the evidence.

Decision 25401 Full Text of Decision 25401

Some cars derailed. Excess of demerit points. It would be relevant to know whether he had been specifically warned in the past, because if in the face of warnings he had failed to take the proper steps at the time of this incident there would be a stronger indication of recklnessness on his part.

Decision 25369 Full Text of Decision 25369

Claimant's reasons constitute an "innocent explanation" (as per CUB 21645) for his disobeying his employer's orders. Railways are not entitled to issue illicit, risky orders just to make their trains run on time, and ignore human safety be ignored. Lawful orders must put safety over profits.

Decision 25127 Full Text of Decision 25127

Claimant was one of a crew of 3 (an engineer, a conductor and a claimant/brakeman). It is obligatory for a crew to read the daily operating bulletin. The fact that they neglected to read it to be advised of what was ahead of them on the track constitutes recklessness amounting to misconduct.

Decision 22219A Full Text of Decision 22219A

Claimant has maintained throughout, and there is no evidence by the employer or the Commission to the contrary, that the violation of Rule 42 (train entering working limits of repair crew without prior permission) was not deliberate and he was not even aware of the infraction until later advised.

Decision 23050 Full Text of Decision 23050

The Board is correct in saying that the misconduct must have been committed by claimant. However, the fact that others may also have been negligent does not absolve claimant from responsibility unless the conduct of that other is such as to make claimant's conduct not wilful, negligent or careless.

Decision 22646 Full Text of Decision 22646

The Board failed to consider whether claimant's actions constituted misconduct. Although the railway company concluded that its rules had been breached, no finding was made by the Board that claimant's actions or omissions constituted wilful or reckless conduct. This was a reversible error of law.

Decision 21645 Full Text of Decision 21645

The evidence reveals that he admitted to knowing that certain of his actions were violations of the rules. The fact that he did violate certain rules does not necessarily mean misconduct. He had demonstrated his concern to his superior regarding his ability prior to the incident.