24 October 2005
Sikh Truckers, CN Negotiating Settlement Over Hardhat Rule
Toronto - A group of about 500 Sikh truck drivers hauling in and out of CP's intermodal yards
are still wearing their turbans as they negotiate a settlement with the railway over a workplace rule that requires them to wear
hardhats either on top of or in place of the religious head dressing.
The truckers have since held back on their threat to file a human rights challenge against the company, which requires the hardhat rule
be enforced at all times while drivers are on CP property.
In September, the truckers protested after the railway issued a memo indicating it plans to step up enforcement of the rule because of
safety concerns.
"Please be advised that per CPR's policy all drivers required to enter CPR property as well as customer locations are required to
wear a hard hat," the memo states. "There is zero tolerance at CPR with regards to this requirement. Failure to abide by the
policies will lead to appropriate disciplinary action."
The memo acknowledges this might be a concern for some Sikh drivers and suggests that the truckers could remove only part of their
turban, which comes in two sections.
A hardhat could therefore sit properly on the "underturban" by removing the five metre-long
"overturban." The drivers, however, refused that offer.
CP spokesperson Paul Thurston says that a moratorium exempting the drivers from the rule is currently in place while the two sides
continue to talk.
While the railway's concern for safety is paramount, there is also a liability issue for the company to consider, Thurston admits.
"If there's an accident on terminal property it's a problem for everybody," he told Today's Trucking.
If a challenge were to be launched, it's difficult to predict which way the courts will sway.
In 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a human rights tribunal decision that ruled in favour of K.S. Bhinder, a maintenance
electrician with CN who refused to wear a hardhat while on the job and was ultimately fired.
Although Bhinder proved he had been discriminated against, the Supreme Court agreed the discrimination was a bona fide occupational
requirement for CN.
However, these days, safety and human rights in the workplace sometimes go together like a veteran B.C. mountain trucker and an
automatic tranny. And more than once the transport industry has been the venue for these ongoing clashes.
Think drug testing: An absolute regulatory requirement for anyone who wants to haul into the US, but more often than not deemed
to be a violation of human rights by Canadian courts - despite the fact that the possibility of an impaired driver could be a severe
safety risk.
It's a risky game predicting the reasoning of human rights commissions and tribunals, says Toronto labour lawyer Ron Ouellette.
"You would think based on history they would lean to accommodation. But the flip side of that is no commission wants to see one
of these guys get hurt three months later. So they've got a very sensitive political issue to deal with," he tells Today's
Trucking.
Ouellette guesses that the Commission, if it ever hears the case, would closely examine the working environment and safety risks
associated with the job. In that case, CP's "zero tolerance" blanket policy won't likely hold up, Ouellette says.
"It can go either way. But if [the policy] is as blunt as "when you come on our property you put the hat on. Period."
Well that's asking for [trouble].
"[The Commision] will ask just what exactly are these guys exposed to on a daily basis? What is the risk? No one is going to tell
the company to take the risk if it involves serious injury or death. But if there's a smaller risk, then they could tell [CP] they
can accommodate by telling the drivers they don't have to put the hat on."
|
