Safety Concerns, Excess Hours, etc.

January 28th, 2006

Brothers and Sisters,

I met with the AVP of Operations, Doug McFarlane yesterday to discuss a few of our concerns. As you might know, Mr. Doug McFarlane has now taken over the responsibility of the Engineering Services in the west, following the upper management re-org going on in the company.

There are a number of safety concerns that have surfaced due to the unfortunate fatality of Brother Bob Martin last December, and I'm sure you are aware that we weren't exactly pleased with the way the former Engineering Services officials were responding. Time will tell if AVP McFarlane can and / or will take the actions necessary to deal with the problems (especially in certain service areas) but I am willing to believe that he is sincere and so I have offered to assist in any way possible. I also believe (or at the very least am hopeful) that this structural change in CPR is for the best and that the people they have now installed will be able to maintain a better working relationship than their predecessors. The proof will come as we watch how they deal with all of the problems that they are inheriting.

AVP McFarlane, LR Manager Wilson and I have committed to travel to the BC Interior Service area together in the near future to assess and to resolve the myriad of problems there, most importantly the safety concerns. We can appreciate that the best way to have a safe and healthy work environment is for all parties who are involved internally to be totally committed to that end. However, as a Union and as employees of CPR, we realize that this is not always the case and so I have attached HRSDC safety complaint forms to this message. As much as I may believe that Mr. McFarlane is committed to safety, we all know that we have heard managers (and higher) state the same and yet the problems persist.

In the BC Interior service area recently, a member brought a grave safety concern (involving a supervisor) to our attention which we immediately took to management for them to address. The supervisor named then got involved in the investigation and phoned the complainant in a manner that we took to be intimidating and could be viewed as retaliation for making the complaint. This was totally unacceptable. If the complaint had have been registered with HRSDC as well as management, the company and this representative of theirs may have been subject to scrutiny under the Canada Labour Code. This has led us to believe that if the company persists in this manner, or allows its representatives to persist in this manner, a more formal approach to safety concerns will be warranted. Remember, your safety and the safety of your brothers and sisters is far too important to leave solely in the hands of management. This includes any investigation of valid safety concerns. There must be no room for coverups, retaliation or inaction.

To his credit, AVP McFarlane has committed in writing that, "... I assure you there will be no cover up of issues supported by me.....and once I know about issues, whether we are "right or wrong" on matters they will be all out in the open. We will have our disagreements on some issues Bill, some of them no doubt strong disagreements but it will be with all of the facts on the table."

Director Henry Helfenbein and I also met with Vern Graham (who is still responsible for TP&E), LR Director Wajda and LR Manager Scott Seeney concerning the Excess Hours Permit and the overtime issue that you are all aware of.

The government, through HRSDC has found CPRail in violation of the code on four counts concerning the overtime hours worked by their employees. CPR has signed an agreement with HRSDC, stating that they will come into compliance within ninety (90) days of December 1, 2005. This means that they will not exeed the excess hours allowable under their permits except in the case of emergent situations. The recent applications have not been approved yet, and the company is asking for more hours than they have asked for in the past (however far less in some cases than they were exceeding and believe that they need). We are in agreement with the company that we do not want to decrease the hours that you people want to work, except in cases where safety is compromised. The company is asking for anywhere from 48 hours to 64 hours per week per employee, depending on the location, type of work, etc. It is not a blanket request but is tailored to their specific needs.

I offered to go to the HRSDC and help to present the case for allowing the excess hours permit, jointly with the company (after certain mutually agreed necessities were signed off on). Though the company did not disagree, there was some resistance from them as I got the impression that they have an agenda already in mind. Often I have found that their idea of jointly resolving issues is for them to present us with an agreement that they drew up on their own and then expect us to sign it. And often that agreement is loaded in their favour, not ours. To be honest, we would like the agreements to be beneficial to our membership first and foremost. However, we are convinced that the best way to resolve problems is to jointly develop and to mutually agree and I made this point at our meeting yesterday. Scott Seeney will be getting back to me with some ideas shortly and we will see if we can get together again as soon as possible, to find the solutions to work within the government guidelines without adverse effect on the company or on our membership.

There are a number of areas that we may be able to work in, including hiring, better organization and averaging, and I am confident that we will be able to get somewhere.

Henry and I were also quite clear that to work together with the company on any issue, could involve (but not be limited to) the big picture of safety concerns, the non-conforming rest days on the seasonal crews , the appeal against the Woollard decision, and just basic human respect and dignity involving our membership. And that is a big picture and it is a lot to expect. But CPRail is a huge corporation, we are the strongest Union in the world and we all are (or should be) the best at what we do. So is it achievable? I don't have any doubt that it is. As long as the will is there on the other side of the table to tackle the big issues. And after our discussions yesterday, I believe that Messrs. McFarlane, Wilson, Wajda and Seeney have the will and the ability to not only tackle the big issues, but also to tackle them in a fair and professional manner.

But once again I have to say, only time will tell. If the new administration works with us in a fair and consistent manner, then the relationship will improve and everyone is better for it. I think that is worth hoping for.

On another note, quite a few company officers retired recently and to all of them (Doug, Jerry, Steve, John, Gerry, Brian and any that I've missed) we wish you all the best. Any disagreements we may have had were professional, not personal, in nature and I hope that your reirement is everything that you worked so long and hard to achieve.

You may also have heard that Mike DeGirolamo retired as AVP of Labour Relations. Mike's retirement will be felt for years to come and as much as I wish him well, he will be sorely missed. Mike was not only a consummate professional on the job, he is a man of great intellect, talent and compassion. Mike always listened to my arguments and judged points on their merit, not on who was delivering them. Mike never gloated when he won a case, just as he never retaliated when he lost. He moved on with the business and always applied the decisions fairly. I like him, personally and professionally. And Brothers and Sisters, so should you. He worked behind the scenes often and unless you were in the arena, chances are you never knew what he accomplished. Mike believed that an employee's family should never suffer because of something work related. And for that reason, he championed the opinion that the company should always try not to lose by dismissal, the investment in training and experience that they have with employees, unless absolutely necessary.

Mike arranged benefits to be extended for the families of employees who died while on duty, he got compensation for legal expenses for a member who had been charged following an accident at work. Mike arranged for weekly indemnity benefits for one of our members who wanted to stay home with his wife while she passed on from cancer, after the benefits were initially denied. We had a member who donated a kidney to his daughter and had to take a number of weeks off work following the operation. Manulife turned down the claim, stating that it was "elective" surgery. Mike got it paid when I brought it to his attention. He also devoted more energy than anyone I know to "Return to Work" and to the EFAP, on top of all his other duties. No matter what I brought to his desk, he addressed it and he did so promptly. Often I thought he was the only lifeline that existed between the company and us, during our overly strained relationship. And he did all of these things (and thousands more) without asking for glory or recognition. He did them becasue they were the right things to do. His title should have been Assistant Vice President of Proper Labour relations. Good luck in the future, Mike and thanks for all you've done in the past.

That's it for now, take care and stay safe and remember you do have the Right to Refuse unsafe work and you are obligated to use it under due dilligence when warranted. Remember, this right is there to save your life and the lives of others.

Also, please print off the attached forms and utilize them when necessary. You are not "ratting out" the company by making these reports, you are protecting yourself and your Brothers and Sisters. Safety is the responsibility of all of us and that is as it should be.

Fraternally,

Bill Brehl
President
TCRC MWED

Complaint Registration Form >>>

Generic Complaint Cover Letter >>>