AH – 43
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
CANADIAN BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, TRANSPORT and GENERAL WORKERS
IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OFS. Heimlich, L. Rhoe, C. Kalisvaart, W. Oakley, H. Fullbeck and W. Spencer
SOLE ARBITRATOR: H. Carl Goldenberg, Q.C.
A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal, Que., on April 20,1967.
Mr. A.N. Rice held a seasonal position as ticket salesman at North Sydney, N.S. His assigned rest days were Wednesday and Thursday. On Monday, September 12, 1966, he was advised that his position would be abolished on Thursday, September 15.
Under Article 13.3 of the collective agreement, an employee whose position is abolished may displace a junior employee in his own seniority group, provided he given notice of his choice within ten calendar days from the date of abolition of his position.
Having been advised that his position would be abolished on Thursday, September 15, Mr. Rice sought to exercise his seniority rights and to displace a junior employee on Wednesday, September 14, which was the day following his last work day in the position he then held because Wednesday and Thursday were his rest days. The Company denied his right to so exercise his seniority, maintaining that assigned rest days are as much a part of the assignment as hours, rates of pay, etc., and, that the determining date for exercising seniority is the date of abolition of the position.
The Brotherhood charges that the Company violated the collective agreement in requiring Mr. Rice to postpone the exercise of his seniority rights until after the date on which his assignment was abolished, although he had completed the work days of his assignment two days earlier, and claims eight hours’ pay for each of the two days when he was not permitted to exercise his seniority.
I find that Mr. Rice could not exercise his seniority until the effective date of the abolition of his position, which was September 15.
The claim made by the Brotherhood is dismissed.
Signed at Montreal, Que., May 25, 1967.
H. Carl Goldenberg
COMMENTARY: The grievor was advised that his position would be abolished on September 15, 1966. As his rest days were September 14 and 15, he sought to exercise his seniority after completing the last work day of his assignment on September 13. In refusing him, the Company maintained that the rest days were an integral part of the assignment and that the determining date for exercising seniority is the date of abolishment. The arbitrator supported this view.