AH Ė 61

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

Canadian National Railway Company

(the "Company")

AND

United Transportation Union

(The "Union")

IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF C. E. READ

 

 

SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill

 

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

M. A. Cocquyt

 

 

And on behalf of the Union:

G. H. Warren

 

A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal on April 15, 1970.

AWARD

DISPUTE:

Claim for run-around in favour of fireman/helper C.E. Read who was second out on the pool board when an assigned way freight crew was used on an auxiliary at Watrous, Saskatchewan on March 26, 1969.

JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:

Due to a derailment 5.4 miles east of Watrous, on March 26, 1969, an auxiliary was ordered out of that turnaround terminal at 1245 hours. The assigned wayfreight crew which was on duty in the yard manned the auxiliary t the scene of the accident. At the same time Foremen/Helpers Koenigbauer and Read were first and second out respectively in pool service at Watrous. Both these employees submitted run-around claims under article 7.18 because a fireman/helper from pool service was not called to man the auxiliary.

The Company paid the run-around claim in favour of Firemen/Helper Koenigbauer, but declined the claim in favour of Fireman/Helper Read

Article 10(F)(6) of the collective agreement provides that all sections other than regular trains will be handled by pool crews. The auxiliary which was ordered to the derailment in the circumstances set out in the joint statement of issue was not a regular train, and a pool crew was entitled to handle it. That this is so is acknowledged by the Companyís payment of Fireman/Helper Koenigbauer, who was first out in pool service at Watrous, and indeed is acknowledged in the Companyís brief.

Article 7.18 of the collective agreement provides as follows:

RUN-AROUND Firemen/Helpers not assigned to regular runs will be run first in first out from the shop track or designated point on their respective subdivisions. If run around avoidably will be allowed fifty (5) miles at minimum freight rate for each run-around.

NOTE: This not to apply when a locomotive returns to the shop for repairs.

Firemen/Helpers on spare board when run around avoidable will be allowed one hundred (10) miles for each run-around and stand first out.

The first paragraph of that provision is applicable here. It is the Unionís contention, in effect, that all firemen/helpers who are run-around avoidably are entitled to the fifty milesí allowance therein provided.

In my view, the obvious purpose of a provision such as article 7.18 is to establish a fair and orderly procedure for the allocation of work to certain classes of employees, and to provide for redress for those who suffer loss of work as a result of the companyís failure to follow that procedure. Section 7.18 is capable of being construed so as to give effect to that purpose by requiring fifty milesí payment to the employee who loses as a result of the Companyís failure to apply the provision. But for the employee to have lost anything, he must have had some entitlement under the provision. In the instant case, Mr. Koenigbauer was entitled to be called. The grievor was not, and would not have been, except in the event of unavailability of Mr. Koenigbauer. The grievor, in fact, lost nothing by the companyís violation of the agreement. In my view, the agreement does not provide that he should gain by it. If the Unionís position were correct, in cases where there was a large number of employees not assigned to regular runs, they would all be entitled to such a payment, even though only one man were needed for the work. Of course, if there had been a requirement for two firemen/helpers then of course the grievor would have been entitled to be called as well as Mr. Koenigbauer, and would be entitled to the fifty milesí payment.

In this case, however, the grievor was not run-around, and that was the condition of entitlement to the fifty milesí payment. In my view the natural and logical construction of the agreement is that the employee who is run-around is entitled to the payment. Accordingly I cannot conclude that the grievor was entitled to any payment in the circumstances in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the grievance must be dismissed.

DATED AT TORONTO, this 24th day of April, 1970.

(signed) J. F. W. WEATHERILL

ARBITRATOR