Worker had two previous suspensions; blamed faulty brakes
A railway worker’s multiple errors contributing to a track collision warranted discharge from his employment, according to an arbitrator from the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution.
The worker was a Group 2 Machine Operator based in Winnipeg since 2013. It was a safety-sensitive position, as his duties included operating heavy machinery on railway tracks requiring specific qualifications. He was required to be qualified in the Canadian Railway Operating Rules (CROR), which are federally-mandated rules governing the railway industry.
In August 2019, the worker travelled outside of his authority limits and failed to report it, and CN felt that he wasn’t forthcoming during the investigation. He was discharged, but CN agreed to reinstate him with a nine-month suspension on his record. In 2021, the worker was suspended for 26 days following a track collision. He was also required to complete training on the CROR.
In late February 2024, the worker spent more than a week operating a spiker - a 22,500-pound piece of track maintenance equipment that drives spikes into railway ties - with two other qualified employees on board. Before his shift on Feb. 27, the worker told a supervisor that he was having issues with the spiker’s brakes. On the previous shift, he had radioed while travelling to the work location that his brakes were performing poorly and the machine directly behind him was giving him extra room to stop.
Before starting his work, the worker performed a “distance to stop” (DTS) test of the spiker, which was required under the CROR and other rules each time the equipment was to move to a location. The DTS determined that the spiker was able to stop in 180 feet while travelling eight miles per hour (mph).
Collision causing damage
The crew completed work at the first location and travelled to the second location, following a welding truck. However, the worker didn’t perform another DTS test before departing.
The welding truck ahead communicated by radio that it would be stopping at a particular mile marker, which was on the other side of a “blind curve” in the tracks. The worker began to apply the brakes, but the brakes didn’t respond. A co-worker also tried to apply the brakes and, although the spiker started to slow down, it wasn’t slowing enough. They got the attention of the employees in the welding truck, who were able to clear the track. The worker pressed the emergency stop button on the spiker, but the machine’s momentum carried it down the track until it collided with the welding truck, causing damage to both the truck and the spiker.
CN investigated the incident and discovered that the spiker’s speed data indicated that it had been travelling 17 mph a few minutes before the collision and then “aggressively decreased speed” as the brakes were applied. It was travelling three mph at the time of the collision, showing that the brakes were working.
The worker reported that they tried to apply the brakes, which had no response, and he said that he had announced earlier in the shift that he needed extra space to stop and the brakes needed to be looked at. The supervisor said that he had tested the spiker’s brakes and “found no issues other than the stopping conditions were longer due to weather,” which was snowing and slick.
The worker denied hearing the radio notification that the welding truck had stopped, but his co-worker on the spiker and the supervisor both heard it.
Investigation led to termination
The worker also said he was in control based on his last DTS test, but said that he only realized at the investigation that he was supposed to conduct a second DTS test when he left for the second work location. He maintained that the spiker had brake issues which were ignored when he had raised them.
CN terminated the worker’s employment for the collision. The union grieved, conceding that discipline was appropriate, but termination was excessive.
The arbitrator found that there “was no question” that the worker was culpable for the collision, so the only issue was whether discharge was an appropriate level of discipline.
The arbitrator determined that multiple errors contributed to the incident, including the worker’s failure to perform a second DTS test as required, which was particularly important because of the weather conditions at the time. The worker had raised concerns about weak brakes earlier in the shift, but despite this he didn’t perform another DTS test. He also drove the spiker at a higher speed (17 mph) than at which he had performed the DTS test (eight mph), the arbitrator said.
The fact that speed data indicated that the spiker had decelerated significantly right before the collision suggested that the brakes were functioning, contrary to the worker’s claim that the brakes failed to engage, said the arbitrator, noting that the worker didn’t allow enough distance to brake at the excessive speed at which the spiker was travelling.
The arbitrator also found that the worker failed to respond to a radio broadcast from the welding truck, although his co-worker in the spiker and the supervisor confirmed that they heard it.
Prior discipline, safety breaches
The arbitrator acknowledged the worker’s 11 years of service but noted a significant disciplinary history, including two prior lengthy suspensions. The recurrence of similar incidents, the failure to follow safety procedures, and the worker’s decision to operate at a high speed despite known equipment concerns were all aggravating factors, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator determined that the worker hadn’t demonstrated proper judgment in a safety-sensitive role and prior discipline had failed to correct his conduct. As a result, the discharge of the worker was “just and reasonable,” said the arbitrator in dismissing the grievance.
