The Union claims that the Company violated Article 4 Clause 4 (d) and Article 8 Clause 1 (c) (exception 1) by dispensing with the services of Morse-Teleprinter Operator S. Dicks ‘JH’ Office, Moncton, N.B., when he was not the junior in the office.

(l) On May 17, 1957, the Superintendent at Moncton N.B released a letter as a matter of departmental policy to the employees in Halifax, Moncton and Saint John advising them of the establishment of a torn-tape switching centre in Moncton on or about September 1, 1957, which would affect a number of employees in the district.

(2) On September 6, 1957, the staff in ‘JH’ Office Moncton were:

(3) On September 6, 1957, the Manager at Moncton issued notices to all Operators in ‘JH’ Office except G.R. Jones, J.W. Hayes and J.E. Brown of the abolition of their positions, the notice to Stephen Dicks reading:

(4) On September 6 the Superintendent issued Bulletin No C-127 reading:

(5) On September 9, Operator Stephen Dicks exercised his to option to return to his former position, his notice of intention to the Superintendent reading:

(6) To fulfil requirements of notice to displace dated September 9 received from Stephen Dicks, a notice was issued by Manager Ford, Fredericton, to Mrs. Irene F. Totten, Morse-Teleprinter Operator, Fredericton, N.B on September 10 reading:

(7) on September 9 and 11 Automatic Operator J.W. Hayes and Morse-Teleprinter Operator G.R. Jones, respectively, applied for Automatic Operator positions ‘MN’ Office, Bulletin C-127 above.

(8) Automatic Operator J.W. Hayes was awarded a position in ‘MN’ Office on Bulletin C-127; consequently on September 10 the Superintendent issued replacement Bulletin no. C-130 reading:

(9) On September 16 Mrs. Irene F. Totten, Morse-Teleprinter Operator, Fredericton, N.B. (displaced by S. Dicks) exercised her option to return to her former position, her notice of intention reading:

(10) Morse-Teleprinter Operator G.R. Jones was awarded a position of Automatic Operator in ‘MN’ Office on Bulletin C-127; consequently, on September 19 the Superintendent issued Bulletin No. C-133 reading:

(11) On September 19, Automatic Operator, J.W. Hayes and Morse-Teleprinter Operator G.R. Jones transferred to the positions of Automatic Operator ‘MN’ Office awarded on Bulletin C-127.

(12) On September 21 Operator S. Dicks’ concurrence was obtained to remaining on duty on a day-to-day basis beyond the expiry date of his notice dated September 6.

(13) On September 27 further notice was served on S. Dicks reading:

(14) On October 1, S.B. Vaughan was awarded the position of Automatic Operator ‘JH’ Office Bulletin C-130.

(15) On October 1 the Superintendent published notice that no applications had been received from qualified Morse Operators on Bulletin C-133 and that a new bulletin would be issued for an Automatic Operator.

(16) On September 26 the Superintendent issued replacement Bulletin C-143 reading:

(17) On October 9 Roy Collier was awarded the position of Automatic Operator ‘JH’ Office Moncton, Bulletin C-143.

(18) October 12 was the last day Operator Dicks worked in ‘JH’ Office Moncton. He reported for duty in Fredericton on October 15.

It is our contention that Morse Teleprinter Operator Mr. S. Dicks’ services at ‘JH’ Moncton should not have been dispensed with because, as of September 19, he was no longer junior in the office. The Company having made it known that they required the services of two operators at ‘JH’ Office and Mr. Dicks was the only remaining operator at that office.

We contend further that the Company having fulfilled their obligation by issuing bulletin C-133, had no authority under the Agreement to issue bulletin C-143 dated September 26 because there was no vacancy, Mr Dicks having been retained, rightfully, until October 12.

It is our claim, therefore, that Mr. Dicks should be returned to his rightful regular position at ‘JH’ Moncton, with full reimbursement of all loss in wages and any additional expense incurred by him when he had to leave Moncton and establish residence at Fredericton.

The Union claims that the Company violated one of the governing staff reduction rules, namely Article 4 Clause 4 (d) and one rule governing appointments and filling positions, namely, Article 8 Clause 1 (c) (Exception l).

The Company contends that in reducing staff in ‘JH’ Moncton, a Class ‘B’ Office, so described in Article 4 Clause 4 (a), our concern is the correct and proper application of staff reduction rules. It is not our privilege here to inject staff appointment rules or staff displacement rules. Any existing applicable staff appointment or displacement rules which extend rights and privileges to Mr. Dicks permitting him to claim another position after his current position is abolished become operative only after the staff reduction rules have been applied.

The applicable staff reduction rules are Article 4 Clause 4 (d) and (d.i.) and article 9 Clause l (b) and (c). The Union’s claim that Article 8 Clause 1 (c) (Exception l) is in any way applicable is denied because it deals with laid off employees subject to recall and not with reduction in staff.

Article 4 Clause 4 (d) and (d.i) of the Collective Agreement read:

Mr. Dicks’ Morse Group seniority was subsequent to January 1, 1940. He had less seniority than Operators Jones and Hayes who continued to fill the remaining two positions in the office. Messrs. Jones and Hayes are competent to fill the necessary assignments.

Article 9 Clause 1 (b) and (c) read:

Operator Dicks received the fifteen days’ notice as required in (b) and the Union does not dispute this fact.

Due to a delay in the transfer of the relay message traffic to the new relay centre in ‘MN’ Office the notice of September 6 to Operator Dicks was extended on a day-to-day basis for seven days and subsequently he was given a further extension for fifteen days. Operator Dicks agreed to the seven-day extension and the Union does not claim a violation of the rules.

On September 6, 1957, there were seven operators in ‘JH’ Moncton occupying five regular positions and one swing position, a total of six. The seventh operator was employed in temporary duties.

On September 6, the Manager of the office served written notice on four of the five Junior operators including Mr. Dicks informing them of the abolition of their positions to take effect at the close of business September 21. Notice to the other employee who was engaged in temporary duties was not a requirement of the Collective Agreement. His relief work was being completed before September 21 and he then returned to his former and regular position in another classification.

Having served this notice on the four junior operators as required by the staff reduction rules, the number of regular positions was reduced from five to two and the number of operators from seven to two.

Operators Jones and Hayes vacated their positions in ‘JH’ Office at the end of their work tours on September 18 by having applied for and being awarded position of Automatic operator in ‘MN’ office on Bulletin C-127.

The Union will probably contend that because Operator Dicks was employed in ‘JH’ Office after the two remaining positions were vacated by Messrs. Jones and Hayes that under the provisions of Article 8 Clause 1 (c) (exception 1), Mr. Dicks was entitled to claim one or the other of the two positions.

ARTICLE 8 Clause 1 (c) (exception 1) reads:

Mr Dicks was not a laid off employee being re-called to service, therefore, the provisions of the foregoing exception do not apply in this case. When his position was abolished, Mr. Dicks exercised displacement rights to return to his former position at Fredericton under the provisions of Article 9 Clause 1 (d) which reads:

It will thus be seen that Mr. Dicks, whose position in ‘JH’ Office was abolished, had a choice and elected to return to his former position. The alternative was to displace the Junior employee in his seniority group on the district who was located at Halifax.

Mr. Dicks, by his action claimed with the full authority of a displacement rule of the Collective Agreement, the right to another regular position as soon as his current position was terminated. The Company was obliged to see that the position which Mr. Dicks claimed was made vacant and this was done on September 1O when fifteen day’s notice was issued by the Manager at Fredericton to Morse-Teleprinter Operator Totten. In selecting Fredericton as his new position, Mr. Dicks did so of his own free will and with the same force and effect as though he had claimed some other position to which he may hold seniority and qualification rights under other rules.

Even if Mr. Dicks had been laid off, and had not claimed the Fredericton position, he still could not have laid claim to either of the two positions vacated by Messrs. Jones and Hayes. These are specified positions and must be advertised to the district.

By implication the Union contends that Mr. Dicks, whose position was abolished, had a right to claim, without bulletin, either the position of Automatic Operator in ‘JH’ Office vacated by Mr. Hayes in which he held no seniority, or the position of Morse-Teleprinter Operator vacated by Mr. Jones. This would mean that Mr. Dicks is privileged to move from a Morse-teleprinter Operator position paying a wage rate of $286.82 to one paying $322.46 without the issuance of a bulletin. Under no rule of the current Collective Agreement may Mr. Dicks claim such a privilege.

Article 8 Clause 1 (c) already quoted provides that vacancies in regularly assigned positions shall be bulletined throughout the district in which they occur not later than five days from which they occur. To have ignored this rule would have constituted a violation of the agreement and the Company would have been open to claims from employees in both the Automatic Operator and the Morse Operator groups who held prior rights. Moreover, a special rule applies for filling a vacancy for a Morse-Teleprinter Operator in a Class ‘B’ Office. This is Article 4 Clause 4 (c) reading.

Obviously, Mr. Dicks’ Morse Group seniority of 1947 did not meet the requirements of the rule. Failing to receive any application to Bulletin C-133 from a qualified employee with district Morse Group seniority prior to January 1, 1940, the Company exercised its prerogative permitted by the rule just quoted to abolish the position of Morse-teleprinter Operator vacated by Mr. Jones and establish an Automatic Operator position in its place. This latter position of Automatic Operator was then advertised over the promotion district by Bulletin C-143 as required under the provisions of Article 8 Clause 1 (c). The position was awarded to Roy Collier on the basis of qualifications and group seniority.

In Summary the situation is this:

(a) The Union claims that the Company dispensed with the services of Morse-Teleprinter Operator S. Dicks. This is denied. Mr. Dicks has been continuously employed since receipt of the notice of September 6.

(b) The Union claims that the Company violated Article 8 Clause 1 (c) (Exception 1). A violation of this rule is denied. The rule is inapplicable. This is a staff appointment rule and not a staff reduction rule. Moreover, the rule quoted applies only to laid-off employees. Mr. Dicks was not laid off.

(c) The Union claim that Mr. Dicks was not the Junior in the office cannot be accepted. The only two positions in the office which were not being abolished when Dicks received his notice were those of Jones and Hayes. Both of these operators had greater seniority than Dicks and subsequent developments could not alter this fact.

(d) Without being specific the Union claims that Mr. Dicks holds rights to one position in ‘JH’ Office. His own position having been abolished, it, must mean that they claim rights either to the Automatic Operator position vacated by Mr. Hayes, the Morse-Teleprinter Operator position vacated by Mr. Jones, or the Automatic Operator position which was newly established when no applications were received on Bulletin C-133 from qualified employees having Morse Group seniority prior to January 1,1940, as authorized by the terms of Article 4 clause 4 (c). The Company denies he has such rights.

(e) By implication the Union denies the force and effect of Mr. Dicks, application of September 9 claiming the right to return to his former position at Fredericton.

The Union denies that Mr. Dicks has rights to his present position of Morse-Teleprinter Operator at Fredericton.

(f) The Company contends that Mr. Dicks’ application of September 9 claiming his former position at Fredericton was his right and that the Company had no alternative but effect a transfer on termination of his duties at Moncton.

(g) The Company contends that Mr. Dicks seniority does not entitle him to the specified position of Automatic Operator advertised in Bulletin C-130; for the Morse-Teleprinter Operator position advertised by Bulletin C-133; or for the Automatic Operator position advertised by Bulletin C-143.

(h) The Company contends that the rights of other employees would be seriously interfered with and jeopardized if the claim of the Union is upheld. The Company contends that the appropriate staff reduction rules were properly enforced and that the employee has no claim. It requests that the dispute be denied.

The Company reserves the right to submit additional evidence either orally or written.

(signed) J. S. Gauthier (signed) P. E. Shantz

General Chairman (for) General Manager

Signed at Toronto, Ontario, February 24, 1958.

Applications addressed to the undersigned will be received up to and including October 7 for the position of Automatic Operator ‘JH’ Office Moncton, N.B., rating per schedule.

Further to Superintendent Marquis’ letter of May 17 concerning the establishment of a torn-tape switching centre at Moncton, N.B. Effective with the close of business September 21, 1957, this letter will serve as fifteen days’ notice that your position as Morse-Teleprinter Operator will be abolished. In accordance with provisions of the Agreement Article 9 Clause (d) you can revert to your former position or displace the junior Morse-Teleprinter Operator in the district.

(signed) L. W. Smith, Manager.

Applications addressed to the undersigned will be received up to and including September 29th for the position of Morse-Teleprinter Operator at ‘JH’ Office Moncton, N.B., rating as per schedule.

Applications addressed to the undersigned will be received up to and including October 7 for the position of Automatic Operator ‘JH’ Office, Moncton, N.B., rating per schedule.