Previous Page

Home

The publication of this issue is slightly behind schedule because your editor attended the UTU Regional Meeting in Reno, Nevada. Also in attendance were Brothers Brian Gleason, Bob Sharpe, Dennis Byron, and Chris Gaudet--along with fourteen hundred other UTU members and family!

Among workshops offered at the three-day meeting were training for local officers, the history of rail labour, women in transportation, renewing the union tradition, fatigue management, financial planning, and switching operation fatality analysis (SOFA), to name a few. A report on the SOFA working group's findings and recommendations can be found on page 6 of this issue, and on our web site. (The synopsis of fatalities posted on our website is enough to make the most experienced yardperson cringe.)

The meetings were also a very good opportunity to network with other UTU members from across North America, and to meet our national and international officers.

Next year, one of the three annual region meetings will be held in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Recently, some of our Occupational Health and Safety Committee (OH&S) representatives have participated in joint management/labour accident and incident investigations.

Why have they been doing this? How can our members reconcile the fact that they are assisting in an investigation of an incident when a brother or sister may eventually face discipline?

The committee members are active in the investigation process because the Railway Safety Code (RSC) dictates "…appoint, where feasible, at least one member [of the OH&S Committee] who exercises management functions and one member who does not, to participate in the [workplace] inspections and [accident] investigations." The UTU has pressured the railway for many years to live up to this part of the regulation, and in November 1998 the Ministry wrote a directive ordering the railway to comply with the joint aspect of investigations.

Subsequently, a protocol was developed which detailed the conditions where union members will participate in investigations. Essentially the protocol states in the event of a WCB Short Term Disability (Lost Time), Occupational Illness or Property Damage/Loss in excess of $5,000.00, or a Near Miss with potential for serious injury occurs, then the incident must be investigated by the supervisor, the employee involved and, where feasible, union and management OH&S representatives.

It is important to investigate near misses. The only difference between a near miss and a serious injury may just be plain luck. A near miss investigation is a perfect opportunity to correct the possibility of a similar situation occurring with more serious consequences.

The protocol dictates that if a union OH&S rep. is not in attendance at the preliminary investigation, all information and evidence gathered is to be reviewed by the investigating supervisor and the appropriate union and management OH&S reps. before the causes and contributing factors are identified and preventive action is recommended. The protocol has been endorsed by the Council of Trade Unions.

The joint accident/incident provision in the RSC is similar to all other modern Canadian OH&S legislation. This provision acknowledges that the people who do the work are best qualified to determine causes. Also, it is the worker who has the most at stake. Without a true understanding of the causes of an incident, and appropriate and effective preventative action, a similar incident (perhaps with more serious consequences) may happen to a brother or sister in the future.

Traditionally, within the running trades joint root cause analysis and preventive action have not been done. Typically, accident and incident causes have been attributed to rule violations, and discipline assessed as remedial action. But discipline does not necessarily prevent a similar occurrence from happening in the future.

A true root cause investigation is based on a model developed by a fellow named Frank Bird. He began with the premise that all losses to people, property or process can be controlled, and that any loss stemmed from management's lack of control.

This fact is reinforced in all modern Canadian OH&S legislation, which puts the bulk of responsibility for safety directly upon the employer.

(I hate the term "loss", it seems so materialistic, but for the purposes of explaining Bird, I'll stick with the convention.)

(Bird's model missing from web version)

A good accident investigation works backward from the loss to determine what lead to the lack of control, and recommend what can be done to fix the control system.

During an investigation, those who are familiar with the work involved should ask themselves, "Given the exact set of circumstances, could the same thing happen to me?" If the answer is "yes", then the investigators should concentrate on determining weaknesses in the system that allowed the incident to happen. Recommendations for remedial action should focus on correcting identified flaws in the system.

The investigators should ensure that all contributing factors surrounding the root causes have been identified. It is likely the investigators will reach a consensus, but if there is a difference in opinion about the interpretation of facts, then it should be stated in the report.

In 1995, the Joint Safety Advisory Committee developed Terms Of Reference for Accident Investigations. The terms dictate that no blame should be assigned, and members of the investigating team will not become involved in any disciplinary actions.

How the results of joint investigations affect the disciplinary process has yet to be determined. Article 107 (b)(i) of the collective agreement states: "…The hearing must be scheduled to be held within thirty (30) days following the completion of the investigation…". It is not clear whether this refers to a joint investigation.

Time will tell if evidence gathered during the joint investigation process will be used at a disciplinary hearing, or what happens if evidence not found in the joint investigation is raised during a disciplinary hearing.

Discipline is a reaction to substandard acts, but it does not address personal factors or job factors. If theses root causes are not addressed, a similar incident may occur to someone else.

Our members will ultimately benefit from this joint process as remedial actions arising from investigations help to improve the systems we work under.

"Some guy hit my fender the other day and I said to him, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' But not in those words." Woody Allen

From time to time, the temptation to suggest that a supervisor perform an anatomically impossible act can be overwhelming. Unfortunately, it is rarely a wise career move.

Swearing at a supervisor can be considered a form of insubordination, depending on the circumstances. A worker may be in hot water if it looks like he or she was resisting or undermining the authority of a member of management, for example.

Mere profanity in itself may not be the grounds for discipline, however, especially if it is common in the workplace. If the air is already full of blue language, a worker is less likely to be faulted for adding to it.

This is particularly true if the swearing is part of a momentary flare-up of temper on the part of the worker. An arbitrator will also look at whether the worker's outburst was provoked and whether the supervisor in question favours the same colourful vocabulary choices.

On the other hand, if the profanity goes with a refusal to obey an order, a nasty public argument or threats, the situation will be treated more seriously. And provocation is not the same thing as saying that the supervisor deserved it. An irritating personality or terminal stupidity on the part of management is not generally considered provocation in itself.

Some kinds of graphic language may qualify as sexual harassment as well, and be treated more severely by arbitrators.

In considering whether profanity is insubordinate, arbitrators sometimes look at whether it amounts to "insolence," a word that reflects some of the master and servant thinking that still persists in labour law. It's almost as if workers are considered in the same light as impertinent children who are disrespectful to their "betters," rather than intelligent and equal adults.

Outside the strange world of labour law, respect is generally recognized as something that must be earned. If employers are not getting any respect, perhaps they might find it worth considering why.

Judith McCormack is a former chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board who now practises labour law with the firm Sack Goldblatt Mitchell.

The Editors of Meeting Point support the concept of free speech and welcome any submissions that may be of interest to our members. Submissions may be made to any Union Officer, E-mail utu@telus.net or our Web page at http://www.utubc.com

The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by investigators at the UP labs. The element, tentatively named Administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have 1 neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons, and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons. It is also surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than one second.

Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons, and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. In fact, an Administratium sample's mass actually INCREASES over time, since with each reorganization some of the morons inevitably become neutrons, forming new isotopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to speculate that perhaps Administratium is spontaneously formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a "service unit."

Report from the SOFA Working Group

There was a presentation by the Switching Operations Fatality Analysis (SOFA) Working Group at the Reno UTU Regional Meeting . The group was formed at the request of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to review recent employee fatalities and develop recommendations for reducing fatalities in switching operations. The group is comprised of representatives from railroad management, labour, and the FRA.

The group closely examined data associated with 76 railroad operation switching fatalities which occurred between 1992 and 1998. Eleven occurred while employees were adjusting knuckles, drawbars or installing SBU's. Twenty six were stuck by equipment other than their own. Eight were attributed to a lack of, or inadequate job safety briefings. Ten resulted from a combination of radio/hand communications, or initial and/or ongoing movement of equipment without specific distances given. Eleven fatalities were shown to have one year experience or less.

Although the group suggested many recommendations, there was a consensus only on the following:

1) Any crew member intending to foul track or equipment must notify the locomotive engineer before such action can take place. The engineer must then apply the locomotive or train brakes, have the reverser centered, then confirm this with the individual on the ground. Additionally, before any adjustment to knuckles or drawbars are made, or SBU installed or removed, it must be insured that the a separation of at least 50 ft. from other equipment is observed. Cars not coupled to a locomotive must be completely stopped, and, if necessary, a sufficient number of handbrakes must be applied to insure cars will not move.

2) Two or more crews are prohibited from switching into the same track at the same time without first establishing direct contact with all crew members involved. Protection must be afforded when there is a possibility of movement on adjacent track. Each crew will arrange positive protection for adjacent track through positive communication with yardmaster and/or other crew members.

3) At the beginning of each tour of duty, all crew members will meet to discuss all safety matters and work to be accomplished. Additional briefings will be held any time work changes are made and when necessary to protect their safety during the performance of service.

4) When using radio communication, locomotive engineers must not begin any shove move without a specified distance from the person controlling the move. Strict compliance with "distance to go" communication must be maintained.

When controlling train or engine movements, all crew members must communicate by hand signals or radio signals. A combinations of radio and hand signals is prohibited. All crew members must confirm when the mode of communication changes.

(Comments from the workshop participants indicated the benefit of maintaining the tradition of hand signals. There was an indication that the "new school" of locomotive engineers were listening for radio signals, but not watching what transpires on the ground. Visual contact with the switchperson may go a long way to prevent a fatality should a mistake occur.)

5) Crew members with less than one year of service must have special attention paid to safety awareness, service qualifications, on-the-job training, physical plant familiarity, and overall ability to perform service safely and efficiently. Programs such as peer review, mentoring, and supervisory observation must be utilized to insure employees are able to perform service in a safe manner.

The SOFA group also recommended a standard format for future fatality data collection, improved crew resource management, safety training, and a follow-up study involving serious injuries.

Recommendations from the report, including discussions and a synopsis of each fatality, can be found on our web site at www.utubc.com/pub/sofa.pdf.

~ Dennis Byron ~

Local Chairperson 1923

Brothers and Sisters:

If most of you haven’t seen it yet, change is upon us. Many of these changes are being done arbitrarily by the various management groups without any input or consultation from any of the Unionized workers affected. Some changes are being addressed by consultation which has resulted in letters of understanding. Consultation and negotiation are the two accepted methods for addressing issues that effect both management and Union.

Unfortunately there are two other methods that companies like to use to implement change. Allowing workers to contravene regulations and violate collective agreements to the point that the violations become past practice. The contravention of regulations is usually permitted to facilitate the expedient performance of various tasks, especially when time is of the essence. Breaking or bending the rules is a double edged sword, fine if it works, just don’t get caught!!!!!

The other method is the violation of the collective agreement. I don’t know how many times this message has to be sent but it will continue to be sent until it sinks in!!!!! The Collective Agreement applies over the whole system. We do not have Collective Agreement articles applicable to each and every terminal unless the situation warrants the involvement of the LCOA or the GCOA at which time the issue will be discussed and special arrangements made by mutual agreement with the men in that terminal and management and usually on a without precedent / without prejudice basis and usually in writing. There is not now nor will there ever be acceptance by this Local Committee of Adjustment to harass members who use their collective agreement rights. These rights are applicable to all UTU members and no one has the right to tell anyone that these rights cannot be implemented! The Collective Agreement is a living document applicable to all of us and if adhered to makes all of our objectives that much easier to attain. Anything less allows management to erode all of that effort.

Fraternally,

D.G. Byron

Local Chairperson, Local 1923

Membership1, the UTU customized training facility, will be in the Lower Mainland, July 3^rd and 4^th.

Discussions with other Lower Mainland UTU locals are taking place to determine a location for viewing and use of this premier facility.

Members of the Canadian national executive will also be in attendance.

Look for notices on your local bulletin boards, or check our web site for further information coming soon.

As of today, there is no railway link between Alaska and the lower 50 continental United States. This could all change soon if senator Frank Murkowski is successful. Last issue (Meeting Point # 22) Steve Edgar wrote an excellent article on this subject.

The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) is owned by the state of Alaska. Bought from the American Federal government in 1985, the ARRC is the result of the feds building one (the government railroad) and buying two (the Alaska Central railroad , the Tanana Valley Railroad )

The Alaska Central Railroad was the original, and in 1902 ran from Seward north for 51 miles to Spencer.

Carrying passengers, freight and mail to the Upper Turnagain Arm (North Pacific Ocean ) where they went by boat, dog team or pack train to Eklutna and the Matanuska Sustina Valley.

The United States of America agreed to purchase Alaska from Russia on March 30, 1867, for 7.2 million dollars (American) All 591,000 sq. miles for less than 2 cents an acre.

For almost 300 years (from 1513 to 1789) Spain claimed that Russia, North and South America and "The Pacific Ocean and any coasts that it might wash" as it’s Sovereign territory, but that is another story.

I believe that a railway link will eventually be built, but I hope not until I have the seniority to hold the work trains during construction, or at least head-end on the Amchitca Switcher.

1169711 Ontario Inc., operating as New Sun Cookies, an Oakville cookie manufacturer, was fined $62,500 today and a supervisor was jailed for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that resulted in the death of a young employee.

On Feb. 11, 1999, David Ellis, 18, of Burlington, was removing cookie dough from an industrial ribbon mixer when the mixer became activated. Mr. Ellis was drawn into the mixer by the rotating blades and struck his head on the edge of the mixer. He was taken to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto where he died of head injuries six days later.

The incident occurred on Mr. Ellis' second day on the job. 1169711 Ontario Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the exposed moving parts of the mixer were guarded, contrary to Section 24 of the Regulation For Industrial Establishments and Section 25(1)(a) of the Act. Michael Peetz of Waterdown, Ont., a former supervisor, and Richard Bates, of Burlington, Ont., a supervisor, pleaded guilty to one count each of failing to ensure that the exposed moving parts of the mixer were guarded, contrary to Section 24 of the Regulation For Industrial Establishments and Section 27(1)(a) of the Act.

The two men were co-owners and directors of the company. Mr. Peetz was jailed for 20 days and Mr. Bates was fined $7,500.

"As thousands of students across the province start summer jobs, the court's decision is a clear message that all employers must take their health and safety responsibilities seriously," said Labour Minister Chris Stockwell. "Prevention is the key and is everyone's responsibility, including parents, workers and employers." The penalties were levied by Justice John Takach of the Ontario Court of Justice in Oakville. It was the third time in Ontario a jail term has been ordered for violations of the Act. Jail terms were ordered for individuals in unrelated matters in 1993 and in 1988.

Well, here we are half way through June with September fast approaching. As you are all well aware, we will be back at the bargaining table sometime in September with the Joint Council to secure a new collective agreement. I am reminding you about this because the CTU heard what the membership said to us during our ratification vote meetings for the last contract. There were two key messages delivered to us. One was the fact that members were not happy with three lost statutory holidays due to the lock out. The Council was finally successful in getting members paid for two of those statutory holidays. The other message that was delivered to the CTU was that if we did not have a renewed collective agreement by January 2, 2001 that the members represented by the CTU would withdraw their services, or to put it very simply, the message was : no contract, no work! I am hopeful that we will reach a renewal agreement prior to January 2, 2001, but as you all know from past history, hope may not be enough. I encourage everyone to prepare themselves as best they can just in case we have to deliver your message to the Railway on January 2, 2001.

On a more positive note, the running trades sector had consultation meetings with the Railway on June 1 and 2 and reached a letter of understanding re scheduled trains (trial) agreement. The trial period for this agreement is June 15,2000 to September 30.2000. If this agreement works for both parties it will be renewed at that rime. Copies of the letter of understanding have been distributed. If you haven't seen one, here are the highlights:

"Pursuant to our discussions. the parties have agreed to the following:

1. This letter of understanding is on a trial basis (June 15 to September 30,2000) on the North Vancouver to Chetwynd corridor for CCO trains. This understanding does not include switchers. This trial agreement will not serve to prejudice any party in future negotiations, nor will it be used as a basis to compromise the positions of the parties with respect to any other operation of the railway.
2. In consideration of the fact that this understanding will not prejudice any party in future negotiations, it is incumbent that all parties advise a minimum of two weeks prior to the expiration of this trial period, whether the Agreement will be continued as is, or require amendment or alternatively, be terminated, to permit any party to serve bargaining proposals on October 2, 2000.
3. Conductors and Enginemen will operate under the same terms and conditions, with respect to this letter of understanding and wherever there is conflicting language with the respective agreements, this letter of understanding will apply.
4. Bulletins will be issued designating the home terminals, subdivisions and starting times. These bulletins will close and positions be awarded effective June 15, 2000.
5. Schedules may change to meet operating requirements. A monitoring committee will be established with representatives, (one) from each party.
6. Crews bidding on assignments, will protect a window of up to five (5) hours at the home terminal, past the bulletined start rime. Example: 1200 scheduled time may be ordered up to 1700 hours.
7. Outbound crews can be ordered at the initial terminal to work or deadhead through to the objective (AFH) terminal. Outbound deadhead crews will not be ordered to pick up trains on line. NOTE: where it is not possible to maintain train schedules by providing relief from the home terminal, relief will originate from the objective terminal. Example: Retaskjt relief would be provided by a Lillooet crew.
8. Homebound crews will go on duty no more than ten ( 10) hours after tie up at the away from home terminal (AFHT). Deadhead crews returning to the home terminal can be used, to relieve southbound trains. Crews on the return trip will be run through the home terminal (e.g.) Squamish.
9. Crews are able to book rest at the home terminal up to 16 hours (including their call time ) without loss of guarantee, and up to a maximum of 10 hours (including call time) at the away from home terminal. Crews can take less rest to protect the train schedule, providing that there is no conflict with mandatory rest (UTU only). This clause will not preclude crews from booking rest in excess of 16 hours at the home terminal.
10. Spare crews on the North Vancouver to Chetwynd CCO service corridor, will be governed by the same conditions as referred to above.

The parties agree that this Letter of Understanding is as discussed, and the situation will be monitored by the respective General Chairmen or their representatives and Peter Rebagliati or his designate, to deal with problems or issues as they may arise."

We hope that any issues arising from these assignments can be dealt with by the monitoring committee to make this agreement work.

We have also committed to meetings in the next month or two to hopefully address some other outstanding issues. The more that can be resolved now the less we will have to deal with come September .

As you are all aware, there are a lot of changes taking place over the system. The only way we can address the day to day issues is if you advise your local Chairperson or me of problems and hopefully we can address them. The UTU does not wish to see anyone losing their job but the railway is going to make the changes and we must deal with any adverse effects to our membership. Our first concern must be safety in all issues. If there is any doubt the "safe course must be taken."

Local Chairperson Steve Edgar is taking a sabbatical after ten years of active union work. Steve has been very busy inside and outside the union and felt it was time for a break. In the interim Vice Local Chairperson, Greg Couch will be handling the Local Chairperson's duties. Greg can be reached at 604-926-2071.

If any members have issues for collective bargaining. please ensure you get them into the locals. The General Committee of Adjustment will have to have all our proposals in by September to be ready for collective bargaining. The General Committee of Adjustment will be trying to visit all terminals prior to collective bargaining in September to meet with as many members as possible. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible over the next few months.