[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281482-105":53,"doc-detail-281482-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","canadian-pacific-kansas-city-railway-case-no-4848-dispute-over-weekly-indemnity-benefits","Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway - Case No. 4848 - Dispute Over Weekly Indemnity Benefits","","Weekly Indemnity Benefits (WIB) were declined to Mr. A of Toronto, Ontario for the period January 26 to June 26, 2016, leading to a labour arbitration between Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. The Union argues the company should have accommodated and explored alternative work after benefits were cut off, and seeks payment to make the grievor whole. The Company maintains the WIB decision was properly adjudicated based on eligibility criteria, medical documentation, and functional abilities information, and denies any violation of the Collective Agreement or applicable return-to-work duties.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/canadian-pacific-kansas-city-railway-case-no-4848-dispute-over-weekly-indemnity-benefits/281482/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/canadian-pacific-kansas-city-railway-case-no-4848-dispute-over-weekly-indemnity-benefits/281482.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Ezra","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":35},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"Why was Mr. A’s weekly indemnity benefits declined for 2016?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The dispute centers on the company’s declination of weekly indemnity benefits between January 26 and June 26, 2016, following its assessment that Mr. A could perform duties associated with a locomotive engineer role and/or did not meet WIB eligibility requirements. The Union argues the assessment should have been based on a conductor’s position instead.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What remedy does the Union request?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The Union requests that Mr. A be paid WIB from January 26, 2016 to June 26, 2016. Alternatively, it requests mitigation of any penalty as the arbitrator sees fit, and also asks the company to explore alternative work with assistance of the return-to-work committee until clearance to resume normal employment.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What arguments does the Company use to oppose the grievance?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The Company argues Manulife adjudicates WIB claims based on policy provisions and medical documentation, and that health services evaluates fitness to work using functional abilities information. It also states Mr. A did not provide required information, limiting accommodation options, and that the grievance does not explicitly allege specific contract or statutory violations beyond a general duty to accommodate.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},281482,1790236111,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":35,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":40,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":140},1099514068035,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION  \nCASE NO. 4848  \nHeard in Montreal, July 13, 2023  \nConcerning  \nCANADIAN PACIFIC KANSAS CITY RAILWAY  \nAnd  \nTEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE  \nAnonymization  \nThe parties have agreed, due to the sensitive personal medical information contained in the file, that the grievor’s name should be anonymized. He will therefore be referred to as “A” or the grievor.  \nDISPUTE:  \nThe issue in dispute is the declination of weekly indemnity benefits (“WIB”) to Mr. A of Toronto, Ontario between the period of January 26 to June 26, 2016 and the Union’s request for the Company to explore alternative work.  \nTHE UNION’S EXPARTE STATEMENT OF ISSUE:  \nMr. A was absent from work since approximately September 12, 2015. During the period between September 2015 and January 2016, there have been numerous assessments and reassessments to determine his fitness to work in a Safety Critical capacity.  \nOn or about January 26, 2016, CP provided Manulife with a job description for a Locomotive Engineer. Based on this description, A was cut off benefits as they deemed him able to perform the duties of a Locomotive Engineer, which is sedentary compared to a Conductor’s position. A however did not have the seniority to hold a Locomotive Engineers position at the time as he was set back. The job description ought to have been for a Conductor’s position.  \nUnion Position:  \nThe Union contends that A is owed top up of his short term disability and, more importantly, the Company has a duty to accommodate as per the Collective Agreement return to work policy and the Canadian Human Rights act.  \nThe Union further contends that at the time of the denial of benefits, the Company ought to have immediately met with A and investigated the possibility of finding other work for him.  \nThe Union requests Mr. A be made whole for the financial top up and subsequent weeks which ought to have been paid, further, that the Company explore alternative work with the  \nassistance of the return to work committee until he is cleared to return to his normal employment.  \nTHE COMPANY’S EXPARTE STATEMENT OF ISSUE:  \nMr. A was absent from work due to an off duty injury from September 12, 2015 to June 21, 2017. A was approved for WIB payments starting September 15, 2015. By letter dated April 1, 2016, Mr. A’s WIB claim was approved to January 25, 2016 and terminated thereafter. Mr. A was made aware of the option to appeal Manulife’s determination, however chose not to file an appeal.  \nMr. A’s fitness to work was as follows:  \n- Jan. 26, 2016-Fit with restrictions  \n- Sept. 30, 2016-Fit with restrictions  \n- Nov. 11, 2016-Unfit all work  \n- Dec. 9, 2016-Fit with restrictions  \n- Jun. 22, 2017 – Returned to Work  \nMr. A retained legal counsel, Diamond and Diamond Personal Injury Lawyers for the purposes of a lawsuit, the details or outcome of which are not known to the Company.  \nThe Union filed a grievance on Mr. A’s behalf on November 25, 2016.  \nThe parties agree that CROA rules apply including item 14 of the Memorandum of Agreement Establishing the CROA&DR.  \nUnion Position:  \nThe Union takes the position that Mr. A’s restrictions were assessed against the job description of Locomotive Engineer and on that basis, his WIB was cut off. The Union contends that Mr. A is owed WIB payments from January 26, 2016 to June 26, 2016. The Union further contends that at the time of the denial of benefits, the Company ought to have immediately met with Mr. A and investigated the possibility of finding other work for him.  \nThe Union requests Mr. A be paid WIB from January 26, 2016 to June 26, 2016. In the alternative, the Union requests that the penalty be mitigated as the Arbitrator sees fit.  \nCompany Position:  \nManulife, the Company’s third party benefits administrator, adjudicates WIB claims based on the evaluation of pertinent policy provisions and relevant medical documentation. The Company’s Health Services department is required","cbCaiqMPkh8nzA3X","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqMPkh8nzA3X","pdf",215996,"English","# Background\n## Anonymization and dispute scope\n## Union’s statement of issue and position\n## Company’s statement of issue and position\n## Positions on duty to accommodate and eligibility\n## Award of the arbitrator","[{\"question\":\"Why was Mr. A’s weekly indemnity benefits declined for 2016?\",\"answer\":\"The dispute centers on the company’s declination of weekly indemnity benefits between January 26 and June 26, 2016, following its assessment that Mr. A could perform duties associated with a locomotive engineer role and/or did not meet WIB eligibility requirements. The Union argues the assessment should have been based on a conductor’s position instead.\"},{\"question\":\"What remedy does the Union request?\",\"answer\":\"The Union requests that Mr. A be paid WIB from January 26, 2016 to June 26, 2016. Alternatively, it requests mitigation of any penalty as the arbitrator sees fit, and also asks the company to explore alternative work with assistance of the return-to-work committee until clearance to resume normal employment.\"},{\"question\":\"What arguments does the Company use to oppose the grievance?\",\"answer\":\"The Company argues Manulife adjudicates WIB claims based on policy provisions and medical documentation, and that health services evaluates fitness to work using functional abilities information. It also states Mr. A did not provide required information, limiting accommodation options, and that the grievance does not explicitly allege specific contract or statutory violations beyond a general duty to accommodate.\"}]","Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway - Case No. 4848 - Dispute Over Weekly Indemnity Benefits | PDF",1789566413,6]