Proper change and storage facilities for contaminated clothing

May 28th, 2006

Brothers and Sisters,

It came to my attention a little over a week ago, that CPR was now denying change rooms and proper storage facilities for contaminated work clothes for surfacing crews in Alberta. Coincidentally, the new service area manager is the same one who was in charge of Southern Ontario Service Area when the company did the same thing to the surfacing crews in Ontario. A complaint was lodged there and a directive was issued by the HRSDC, and upheld at appeal. If you check on our website, you will see many references to this case, the Woolard decision.

CPR is appealing the decision once again, this time in court, and we are going to argue the case there as well.

Last week, I sent a message to Anthony Manconi, the manager of TP&E, concerning the current Alberta issue. I did so in the hopes of resolving the issue and possibly avoiding numerous HRSDC complaints. I think you will agree, it was written and sent in a professional manner. I fully expected a professional reply, whether the company took a divergent position or not. I will admit, I was surprised and disappointed.

I have attached the company's reply for your review.

I realize that Mr. Manconi is pretty new to his position, however we assumed that he would realize that a surfacing crew in Ontario faces relatively the same contaminants as a surfacing crew in Alberta, and that these were "specifically" outlined in the Woolard complaint and subsequent decisions. That is why we did not name all the specific contaminants in our informal letter to Mr. Manconi or to Dave Cisecki (who did understand).

I realize now, that we should never assume that everyone will grasp what is obvious to all of us. The current formal complaints being lodged in Alberta (that we tried, unsuccessfully, to avoid) will name the contaminants very clearly, as they were in the Woolard complaint.

HRSDC is a governmental body, a third party, who have no stake in this argument other than to prevent injury or illness to CPR's employees. They have decided (not once, but twice) that there are health risks in the contaminants that get on the clothing of these employees. And they have told CPR to insure the safety of their employees. However CPR is of a different opinion. As it states in the May 24th reply:

"Further, the Company does not share the Union’s view, nor that of HRSDC, concerning the presence of contaminants in the workplace that would warrant the provision of a separate change room."

These words especially disturb me. They speak of putting our member's health at risk because they have a differing view. If the adage, "When in doubt, the safe course must be followed" was really beleived, then wouldn't they comply with the directive on all their surfacing crews, untill the matter is settled in court? You know.... just to be on the safe side?

The company has always disapproved of the statement, " Your safety is much too important to leave in the hands of management." Read the company's response carefully, and I believe that you will come to believe that the above is a truthful statement in more ways than one.

Fraternally,

Bill Brehl
President
TCRC MWED

Letter from CPRail (PDF document) >>>