This episode features John Poskin discussing Article 29 limitations on the replication of driving privileges. Poskin begins by outlining the relevant contract language from the JCAM, emphasizing that an employee’s driving privileges can be revoked or suspended only when the on-duty record shows the employee is an unsafe driver. He explains that a “Safe Driver Award Committee” cannot revoke privileges; only the employee’s on-duty record matters. Crucially, Poskin notes that management must make every reasonable effort to reassign a carrier with suspended driving privileges to non-driving duties within their craft or other crafts, stressing the responsibility falls on management. He explains situations where a temporary suspension of driving privileges is warranted and how an employee’s record is assessed. Crucially, he clarifies that suspension or revocation of driving privileges is not automatic based solely on an accident but requires evidence of unsafe driving practices in the employee’s on-duty record.
Poskin then delves into a case study (C-18159), where Arbitrator Snow determined that management must make every reasonable effort to accommodate a carrier with a suspended license. This includes offering non-driving duties within the employee’s craft or in other crafts, and if no such work is available, the carrier is entitled to leave with pay.
Furthermore, Poskin details a case out of Chattanooga, Tennessee (C-32696), where a carrier with a medically related license suspension was not offered sufficient non-driving work. The arbitrator in this case ruled that management’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation constituted a violation of Article 29, ordering reinstatement with back pay.
Poskin also discusses a recent notice of removal case he worked on, highlighting issues in the case file and emphasizing the importance of clarity in charges, particularly when management fails to provide full information to union representatives. He states that in this case, the arbitrator sided with the union, ruling the removal unjustified due to management’s failure to clearly demonstrate misconduct and failure to provide necessary information for the union to defend the carrier. Poskin stresses the importance of a clear articulation of the charges and the union’s role in advocating for the carrier’s rights. He underscores the responsibility of both the union and management to fulfill their contractual obligations in situations like these. The overall message from these cases is that the union has a clear responsibility to ensure carriers are fairly treated during any license suspension or potential removal, and management must prove their actions are justified in the carrier’s record and follow proper grievance procedures.