Brothers and Sisters,
 
Back in 2003, a service area manager at CPR decided, in an effort to reduce costs, to take away the change room provided to a southern Ontario surfacing crew. This forced the surfacing crew employees to bring their wet, soiled and contaminated clothing into the motel room where they ate and slept.
 
Allan Woollard, a machine operator on the surfacing crew and Bill Brake, then local chairman and H&S committee member, brought the issue to the attention of HRSDC.  Health and Safety officer Rod Noel issued a directive that ordered CPR to re-instate the change rooms to be compliant with the regulations. CPR appealed this directive and yet it was upheld. During this time, the company began systematically removing the change rooms from other TP&E crews which caused us to grieve the issue and to seek injunctive relief from Arbitrator Picher. The injunctive relief was granted and CPR was told that the practice of having change rooms on TP&E crews must continue until the case is heard at arbitration. CPR was not about to give up and took the matter to court under judicial review. Both the company and the Union agreed to hold the grievance in abeyance until such time as the 'Woollard' case was finally settled through the legal and/or regulatory process.
 
This went back and forth in court until finally, the matter was remitted to another appeals officer for re-determination. Hearings began in April, 2009 and were concluded in April, 2010. The attached decision is a result of that re-determination.
 
In short, the appeals officer, Mr. Pierre Guenette, has found that our work clothing does get contaminated with hazardous substances, including ones that contain carcinogens. He also concluded that despite the company's argument to the contrary, we do have to regularly work in situations where our clothing becomes wet. I was somewhat amazed that the company would argue so vehemently otherwise, considering that their tracks are obviously outdoors and exposed to all kinds of weather. Just normal (required) preventative maintenance and the lubricating of machines, exposes these employees to the elements. Does CPR care so little for our comfort and safety that they would make the arguments that they did or are they really that out of touch with the reality of their work environment?
 
Mr. Guenette also did not find "...the hazard assessment conducted by D. Wylie, the expert produced by the employer, to be relevant." This is important, as Mr. Wylie's assessment was the basis of much of the company's argument.
 
Also contrary to the company's position, Mr. Guenette concluded that the employees' clothing were regularly contaminated by hazardous substances, as defined by sub section 122.1 of the code. Again I am amazed that CPR, who maintain that "...when in doubt the safe course must be followed.." would argue for so long that their employees' clothing was not contaminated, even though they knew that they were coming in contact with substances that were on CPR's MDSD forms and defined as hazardous substances. It would seem that saving the cost of a change room took priority to the safe course being followed.
 
Mr. Guenette's decision is a good one. It is clear, concise and should be easy to understand and implement.
 
Hopefully this will be the end of this issue and that CPR will come willingly into compliance for the safety and health of all their employees who are exposed to hazardous substances. I have brought the matter up to their Manager of Labour Relations and expressed a willingness on our part to work with them in not only settling the grievances pertaining to change rooms but into safely and seamlessly transitioning into adherence to this latest directive. This is a chance for CPR to step up to the plate and take the safe course, for the good of their employees and to put health and safety as the first priority, in reality... not just as a slogan.
 
Stay safe, stay strong, stay united,
 
Bill Brehl
President
TCRCMWED
 
" Your safety is not expensive...its priceless."

 

letter >>>