105

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

 

 

 

BETWEEN : CANADIAN NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND : CANADIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIVISION

CANADIAN BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS

 

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF B.R. WINTON -

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7.1 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

 

 

BOARD OF ARBITRATION : Kevin M. Burkett, Chairman

S. E. Dinsdale, Q.C. Company Nominee

Brian Switzman, Union Nominee

 

 

APPEARANCES FOR THE

COMPANY : J. W. Healy, Q.C. Counsel

R. S. Finegan

Reg. Kelly

 

 

APPEARANCES FOR THE

UNION : Pamela A. Sigurdson, Counsel

J. M. Beauchemin, Union Rep.

R. Cowan, Union Rep.

B. R. Winton, Grievor

 

 

 

 

A hearing was held in this matter in Toronto on November 21, 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A W A R D

 

1. This matter came on for hearing under the terms of a subsisting collective agreement between the parties. The union grieves that Mr. B. Winton, Relief Plant Technician, Winnipeg, was not given 48 hours’ notice of a change in his rest days in violation of article 7.1 and was required to work 12 consecutive days without a day off, and asks, therefore, that his wages be adjusted to provide for the appropriate overtime payments. There is no dispute as to the authority of this Board to hear and determine this matter.

2. Mr. Winton has been a full-time regular employee of the Company since 1973 and has been a relief plant technician Grade 5 since February 24, 1978 when he was selected as a result of a job posting. The company utilizes regular plant technicians, swing plant technicians who are assigned to provide for rest day coverage for regular plant technicians, and relief plant technicians who are assigned to fill in for both regular and swing plant technicians who are absent due to illness, vacations etc. The company undertakes under article 18A to establish a sufficient number of regular and/or temporary relief positions in order to meet all necessary reliefs.

3. The work assignments giving rise to the instant grievance took place in May, 1978. The grievor commenced working a regular late night tour (1:00 - 8:00 a.m.) with Monday and Tuesday rest days on Wednesday May 3rd. He worked this shift from May 3rd - 7th inclusive and was off on May 8th and 9th. He worked this shift again from May 10th to 14th inclusive and was off on May 15th and 16th and repeated again for the period May 17th - 21st inclusive. He was notified on Friday, May 19th, however, that commencing Monday, May 22nd he would be covering a swing tour with Friday and Saturday days of rest. His start time was to be 1:00 a.m. on Monday May 22nd, 1:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 23rd, 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 24th, 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 25th and he was scheduled off on Friday, May 26th and Saturday, May 27th. Mr Winton reported and worked as scheduled on Monday, May 22nd and Tuesday, May 23rd. Mr. Carl Holstead, the regular late night plant technician whom Mr. Winton had covered for earlier in the month, called the company around 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23rd to advise that he had suffered an injury while on vacation and would not be reporting at 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 24th as scheduled. The company immediately contacted Mr. Winton and notified him that he was being assigned from the swing tour he had commenced on May 22nd back to the late night tour with Monday and Tuesday days off. He was told, therefore, to report for work at 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 24th rather

 

 

 

 

 

 

than at 9:00 a.m. and to work on Friday, May 26th and Saturday, May 27th which would have been days off if his schedule had not been altered. Mr. Winton reported at 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 24th and worked the late night shift as he did on Thursday, May 25th, Friday, May 26th and Saturday, May 27th. Although scheduled to work the late night shift on Sunday, May 28th, he was ill and could not work. He was scheduled off work on Monday, May 29th and Tuesday, May 30. Because of the shift changes detailed above, Mr. Winton worked from May 17th to May 27th inclusive and was scheduled to work on May 28th. He received no overtime payments for any time worked during this period.

4. The following chart provided to the Board at the hearing graphically illustrates the grievor’s schedule during the month of May, 1979.

 

( C H A R T)

1. Requested to work on day shift to avoid being short two days - Request granted by the company

2. Relief Plant Technician covering L/N Tour - Rest Days Monday & Tuesday

3. Relief Plant Technician covering Swing Tour - Rest Days Friday & Saturday

4. Relief Plant Technician covering L/N Tour - Rest Days Monday & Tuesday

Note : All Reliefs in accordance with Article 18A Clause 4 covering Relief Plant Technician assignment.

5. The Board heard conflicting evidence as to the practice of the company in respect of giving notice of shift changes and the use of employees on overtime to fill short absences of one or two days. The evidence in this regard is not conclusive and in any event we are not satisfied that the terms of the agreement which govern the situation before us are ambiguous as would permit resort to extrinsic evidence.

6. The relevant articles of the collective agreement are set out below :

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 7

Work Week for Regular and Swing

Assignments

Clause 1 :

Employees shall be assigned two (2) rest days in each seven (7). The rest days shall be consecutive as far as is possible, consistent with the establishment of regular swing assignments and the avoidance of working an employee on an assigned rest day. Preference shall be given to Saturday and Sunday and then to Sunday and Monday. The work weeks may be staggered in accordance with the Company’s operational requirements.

Assigned hours and/or rest days, including those of swing positions may be changed in accordance with the requirements of the service, but not less than forty-eight (48) hours’ notice of such change shall be given the employees affected.

Clause 2 :

It is not the intention that the establishment of staggered work weeks as provided for in Clause 1 of this Article shall lead to the performance of work on Sunday not essential for the requirements of the service. In any disputes as to the necessity of departing from the pattern of two (2) consecutive rest days or for granting rest days other than Saturday and Sunday or Sunday and Monday, it shall be incumbent on the Company to show that such departure is necessary to meet operational requirements.

Clause 3 :

Swing assignments, consistent with service requirements, will be established by the Company to provide for rest day coverage. Such assignments may, on different days, have different starting times, duties and work locations provided such starting times, duties and work locations are those of the employee(s) relieved. Employees filling such assignments will receive their personal step rate in the grade of the swing positions as set out in the wage scale.

Wherever possible, except by agreement between the Company and the employee concerned, a minimum of eight (8) hours will be provided between the completion of one Swing assignment and the commencement of the next.

 

 

 

 

Clause 4 :

The Company will avoid wherever practicable, work week assignments involving non-consecutive rest days. Prior to establishing such work weeks, the Company will consult with the General Chairman or his accredited representative to seek an alternate solution.

Clause 5 :

On positions where it is not reasonably practicable to provide regular relied each week, the rest day or days for which relief is not provided may be accumulated and granted at a later date in accordance with understandings to be worked out between the District Chairman and the proper Officer of the Company.

Clause 6 :

The term ‘work-week’ for regularly assigned employees shall mean a week beginning on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work.

Clause 7 :

The provisions of this Article do not apply to Motor Messengers Part Time.

Clause 8 :

(a) Technicians employed on the Tropsopheric Scatter System at Snare Rapids Port Radium and Lady Franklin Point will rotate their work schedule as follows :

(i) Twenty-eight (28) straight days, including travelling time, will constitute a shift at either Snare Rapids, Port Radium or Lady Franklin Point.

(ii) Upon completion of twenty-eight (28) day shift, Technicians will be returned to Edmonton for consecutive rest days earned, which are to be liquidated.

(iii) Following completion of procedure outlined in paragraphs (i) and (ii), each Technician will return to his base station for another tour.

 

 

 

 

 

(b) It is further agreed that in the application of this Clause, due to possible inclement weather, uncertainties of aircraft arrivals and departures, or any other eventuality which may cause a Technician to work his assigned rest day, or days, he will be paid at punitive rates in accordance with Article 9, Clause 4. However, should the relieving Technician arrive for duty at the assigned time, but due to unforeseen circumstances the relieved Technician is not able to depart from the site, any time waiting for such departure will be paid for at pro rata rates. In such instances, the time paid for will reduce the number of rest days accumulated in section (a) (ii) of this Clause.

(c) The provisions of this clause 8 do not apply to Installation Technicians.

 

ARTICLE 9

Overtime and Calls

Clause 4 :

Employees, if required to work on regularly assigned rest days (except when these are being accumulated as provided for in Article 7), shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half for all time worked with a minimum of two hours and forty minutes for which two hours and forty minutes services may be required.

 

ARTICLE 18A

Relief Employees (Technical)

Clause 1 :

A sufficient number of regular and/or temporary relief positions will be established to meet all necessary reliefs.

Clause 2 :

Temporary relief positions will be bulletined as far in advance of the required date for the position as possible. The employee appointed will remain on his regular position except where training is necessary until required to perform the relief.

 

 

 

Clause 3 :

The grade rates applicable to relief positions will be set out in the wage scale. Employees appointed to such positions will receive the applicable step as provided for in Article 13A, except that in cases where relieving on a position in a higher grade, the employee will receive his appropriate step in the higher grade.

Clause 4 :

The regular employees in the Office will exercise strict seniority to choose a tour and work week and the relief employee will assume the unfilled tour and work week, qualifications being sufficient.

 

ARTICLE 8

Hours of Service

Clause 2 :

(d) Employees may only exercise seniority for choice of tour of duty within a regular or temporary position in a grade when a position is vacant or at the change of time - Spring and Fall.

7. The Union argues that Article 7, Work Week for Regular and Swing Assignments, applies to the grievor and under its terms he is entitled to be assigned two (2) rest days in each seven (7) and to be given not less than forty-eight (48) hours’ notice of any change in his assigned hours and/or rest days. The Union maintains that if the parties intended to exclude relief plant technicians from the operation of the clause they would have done so expressly as they did in clause 7 of the article in respect of Motor Messengers part-time and as they did in clause 8 in respect of Technicians employed on the Tropospheric Scatter system. The Union refers the Board to article 9.4 in support of its position that the grievor is entitled to payment at the rate of time and one-half for time worked on regularly assigned rest days. The Union acknowledges that article 18A, Relief Employees (Technical), establishes a number of terms and conditions which relate only to relief technicians but argues that there is nothing in the article to remove the relief technicians from coverage under articles 7 and 9. The Union reads article 18A as "harmonizing" the agreement in respect of relief technicians and takes the position that if the parties had intended to exclude relief technicians from coverage under article 7 they would have done so by the use of specific language in the article. The Union argues that

 

 

 

 

if the Board does not find in favour of its interpretation of the agreement, relief technicians will not be entitled to a fixed number of days off and depending on scheduling requirements may be required to work any number of consecutive days.

8. The Company takes the position that article 7, Work Week for Regular and Swing Assignments, does not apply to relief employees. The Company maintains, therefore, that neither the rest day nor notice requirements of article 7.1 apply to relief technicians. The Company relies on article 18A.4 which provides in part that " . . . the relief employee

will assume the unfilled tour and work week . . . " and argues that the relief employee assumes the work week to which he is assigned and the days off which go with it. The Company argues that in this case Mr. Winton assumed the swing tour effective from Monday, May 22nd and then the late night tour effective from Wednesday, May 24th and at no time was he required to work the assigned days off of the tour and work week which he had assumed. In supporting its position the Company relies on an unreported award of Mr. J.D. O’Shea, Q.C., (The Canadian Telecommunications Union Division No. 43 of the United Telegraph Workers and Canadian National Railways Telecommunications Department, February 8, 1973) between the same parties to this matter.

9. The O’Shea award deals with the case of an employee covered by essentially identical contract language to that which pertains in this case. The grievor in that case was assigned from a day shift to a swing shift (February 9th) and back on a day shift (March 6th). He was given timely notice in respect of both changes. As a result of these shift changes the employee worked seven consecutive days without a day off (March 4th to 10th inclusive) although he was off the two days before and the two days after the seven consecutive working days.

10. In deciding that the agreement had not been violated, Mr. O’Shea applied the relevant provisions and reasoned as follows :

"Although the first sentence of Article 7, Clause 1 of the collective agreement states that ‘Employees shall be assigned two (2) rest days in each seven (7)’, we are of the view that these periods of seven days were intrended by the parties to constitute what is subsequently referred to in Article 7, Clause 1 as the ‘work weeks’. In Article 7, Clause 6 the parties have defined work week as a week (i.e. 7 days) ‘beginning on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work.’ When these provisions are applied to the facts of this case, we find that the grievor was bulletined to return to his former shift on Monday, March 6. Accordingly, Monday, March 6 was the commencement of the work week for the following period. Since the grievor enjoyed rest days on Saturday, March 11 and Sunday, March 12, he was therefore assigned two rest days in the seven-day work week which commenced on Monday, March 6 in accordance with the provisions of Article 7, Clause 6.

 

. . . . . . . .

Again, since the grievor only worked forty hours in the work week which commenced on March 6 (in accordance with Article 7, Clause 6) he is not entitled to any relief under Article 9, Clause 2 of the collective agreement. In addition, since the regularly assigned rest days for the day shift which he commenced to work on March 6 fell on Saturday and Sunday, it cannot be said that he was required to work his regularly assigned rest days since his rest days ceased to be Thursday and Friday after he was moved from the swing shift".

11. Assuming that the grievor in Mr. O’Shea’s case was a "regularly assigned employee" (it is not clear on the face of the award), this Board is of the view that his application of the agreement to the facts before him was correct. In our case, however, we are dealing with a relief employee who is not a "regularly assigned employee" within the meaning of article 7.6. If relief employees are covered by the other provisions of article 7 (an issue yet to be determined), it is clear that the work week for a relief employee is not defined as meaning a week "beginning" on the first day on which the assignment is bulletined to work".

If relief employees are covered under the provisions of article 7 their entitlement to rest days is not on the basis of the work week defined for "regularly scheduled employees" but is simply on the basis of two in any seven day period. It is to be noted that even if the grievor in Mr. O’Shea’s case had been a relief employee he was not denied two days off in seven as would have sustained his grievance if it had been found that he was covered by the terms of article 7.

12. The Company’s interpretation of the agreement denies relief employees, in contrast to both regular and swing employees, entitlement to a fixed number of scheduled days off. If the Board accepts the Company’s interpretation of the agreement the Company would be free to schedule relief employees to an unlimited number of consecutive days of work without payment of premiums so long as it did so for genuine business reasons. This unusual result, however, is not sufficient to allow the Board to adopt the Union’s interpretation. The Board must look to the agreement and decide which of the interpretations urged upon it is supported by the language. Only if the language supports both interpretations is the Board entitled to look to the usual consequences flowing from one or other of the interpretations urged upon it.

13. The Company’s case rests in large measure on article 18A which provides in part that . . . "relief employees will assume the unfilled tour and work week". The Company maintains that a relief employee is not covered by article 7 (work week) and by virtue of article 18A is required to "assume the unfilled tour and work week" of the regular or swing employee he is assigned to relieve. The Company argues that a relief employee’s

 

 

 

 

days off, therefore, are tied to the schedule he assumed and are subject to change every time he assumed a different schedule. The Company does not acknowledge that when a relief employee is reassigned a number of times within a short period, as in this case, there is any obligation upon it to provide days off other than for those which are part of the tour most recently assigned to the relief employee.

14. The language of article 18A.4 relied upon by the Company, however, is preceded by the words "the regular employees in the office will exercise district seniority to choose a tour and work week." The two pieces of language form a single sentence joined by the conjunction "and" and must therefore be read together. In our view, the requirement for the relief employee to assume the unfilled tour and work week is restricted to those situations where a regularly scheduled employee exercises district seniority to choose a tour and work week. Article 8.2(d) stipulates that "employees may only exercise seniority for choice of tour or duty within a regular or temporary position in a grade when a position is vacant or at the change of time - Spring and Fall". (emphasis added) There are no other circumstances which allow a regular employee to exercise seniority for choice of tour of duty under the existing agreement. In the case before us a regular employee did not exercise seniority to choose a tour and work week so as to require Mr. Winton to assume an unfilled tour in accordance with article 18A.4. Mr. Winton was relieving for a regular employee who fell ill while on vacation and accordingly, we must find that article 18A.4 does not apply in the circumstances of this case.

15. We now turn to a consideration of article 7 (Work Week for Regular and Swing Assignments). The facts before us establish that there are two types of assignments under the instant agreement ; regular assignments and swing assignments. There are however, three types of employees who perform these assignments ; 1) regular employees, 2) swing employees, and 3) relief employees. Relief employees perform either regular or swing assignments. The heading of the clause, therefore, which refers to regular and swing assignments does not support the suggestion that relief employees are excluded from its operation. More importantly, however, the language of the clause supports the conclusion that is was the intent of the parties to cover relief employees under its provisions. Article 7.1 applies to "employees" generally in contrast to article 7.6 which is restricted to "regularly assigned employees". If the parties had wished to restrict the operation of article 7.6 to regularly assigned employees and/or swing employees they could have done so expressly as they did in article 7.6 In clause 7.7 the parties have expressly excluded motor messengers part-time from the application of the clause generally and in clause 7.8(c) the parties have expressly excluded installation technicians from the operation of clause 7.8. In the face of the broad language used in article 7.1 in contrast to the more restrictive language found in article 7.6 and in the absence of the

 

 

 

 

specific exclusion of relief employees from the operation of the clause we are compelled to conclude that article 7.1 applies not only to regular and swing employees but to relief employees as well. There is nothing in article 18A, Relief Employees (Technical) which in any way affects the coverage of relief employees under article 7.

16. Article 9.4 provdes that "employees if required to work on regularly assigned rest days shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half for all time work . . ." We have found that relief employees are covered by article 7.1 which provides in part that "employees shall be assigned two (2) rest days in each seven (7)". In reference to the O’Shea award (supra) we commented that article 7.6, which defines the work week for regularly assigned employees, does not apply to relief employees and consequently the fixed reference point used by Mr. O’Shea in determining if the grievor in his case had received two rest days in seven (the first day on which the assignment is bulletined) does not apply in the case of a relief employee. As explained at paragraph 11 herein, the entitlement of a relief employee is to two rest days in a floating, as distinct from a fixed, seven day period.

17. Mr. Winton, a relief employee, had scheduled days of rest on May 15th and 16th and again on May 29th and 30th. He was scheduled to work the twelve days in between. Each pair of rest days aassigned to a relief employee supports five days of work under the provisions of article 7.1. In Mr. Winton’s case, however, each pair of rest days in the relevant period (May 15th - 30th inclusive) supported 6 days of work. Mr. Winton, having had two days of rest on May 15th and 16th and having worked the following 10 consecutive days (May 17th - 26th inclusive) was entitled to May 27th and 28th as days of rest. Instead, he was required to work on these days. If he had continued on the swing tour which he commenced on Monday, May 22nd he would have worked 9 consecutive days and have been off work on May 26th and 27th. His treatment would have been essentially the same as that considered by Mr. O’Shea and would not have supported a claim for premium payment for time worked on a day of rest. If he had been off work on May 26th and 27th, or even on May 27th and 28th, he would have had the necessary proportion of days of rest to days of work. He was not assigned rest days until May 29th - 30th, however, and in the result we are compelled to find that in the 14 day period May 15th - 28th inclusive the grievor worked two days which he was entitled to take as days of rest under article 7.1 and for which he was entitled to claim payment at the rate of time and one-half under article 9.4 for the hours worked on these days.

18. Having regard to all of the foregoing, the Board hereby declares that in the circumstances of this case the grievor was covered by the provisions of article 7.1 and is entitled to be paid at time and one-half for his hours of work on May 27th and May 28th, the last two days in the relevant period which could have been properly assigned as days of rest. The Company is hereby ordered to compensate the grievor in an amount equal to the difference between what he earned on May 27th and 28th and what he would have earned had he been paid at time and one-half.

 

 

 

 

DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of January, 1980.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Kevin M. Burkett

Chairman

 

 

(sgd.) Brian Switzman

__________________________

Union Nomminee

 

105

 

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

 

 

 

BETWEEN : CANADIAN NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND : CANADIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIVISION

CANADIAN BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS

 

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF B.R. WINTON -

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7.1 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

 

 

DISSENTING OPINION OF S. E. DINSDALE, Q.C.

I have read the majority decision in this matter and find that I can not agree with my colleagues’ conclusion.

The grievor claims that the Company has violated Article 7.1 of the collective agreement in that he was not given 48 hours’ notice of a change in his rest days and was required to work 12 consecutive days without a day off. The Company contends that Article 7.1 does not apply to a relief employee and the grievor’s rights are to be determined under Article 18A.

It was agreed that the collective agreement contemplates and provides for three types of employees; regular, swing and relief.

Regular employees and swing employees are assigned to what may be described as "known" shifts. The nature of the Company’s business is such that around the clock scheduling is required and swing assignments are used to cover the "rest days" of regular employees. As I understand it, relief employees, the third category, do exactly what the name suggests, that is, relieve both regular and swing employees in cases of illness, leave of absence, vacations, etc. Many of these assignments can be scheduled in advance but others, which arise through unknown or unexpected circumstances as in the case before us, have to be made on short notice.

 

 

My colleagues have interpreted Article 18A.4 to mean that a relief employee may only be required to assume an unfilled tour of work week in situations where a regularly scheduled employee exercises district seniority. The Board referred to Article 8.2(d) which stipulates that employees may only exercise seniority for choice of tour when a position is vacant or at the change of time in the Spring or Fall.

The Company contends that Article 18A.4 required that whenever a relief employee aassumes a regular employee’s shift, he also assumes the days off scheduled for that shift.

The Union disagrees and contends that Article 18A.4 is limited by both Article 8.2(d) and Article 7.1. The Union argued that a relief employee may assume an unfilled tour or work week but he does not assume the days off of that shift unless the change coincides with the regular employee having exercised his district seniority. The Union contends that Article 7.1 supports that position in that it guarantees employees two days off in every seven days.

I am unable to agree with this proposition. Article 18A.4 in my view, is not limited to circumstances where the relief assignment coincides with the selection of a work week and tour of duty by a regular employee. These I no such limitation contained in Article 18A.4 nor elsewhere in the collective agreement. Presumably all regular employees have a work week and a tour of duty as a result of having made such a selection.

I refer to a number of clauses in the collective agreement.

Article 18A.1 requires that a sufficient number of relief positions will be established to meet all necessary reliefs. Article 18A.7(c) places the responsibility of determining the necessity of relief positions on the Regional Manager, subject to the provisions of Article 18A.1.

It should be noted that the collective agreement does not contain any provisions defining the circumstances in which a relief employee is to be assigned. There is, however, no dispute that the purpose of relief employees is to relieve in cases of sickness, lateness, vacation, etc.

Article 18A.4 provides that the choice of tour and work week is made by the regular employees, (and I read that to mean regular employees as opposed to relief employees), and a choice having been made, the relief employee assumes the unfilled tour and work week, which of course included the assigned days off.

 

 

 

 

The provisions of Article 18A.7(a) - "Relief Assignments will be allocated as equitably as practicable" - protect the relief employees against inequitable assignments.

I am of the view that the provisions of Article 18A of this collective agreement are designed and intended to permit the assignment of relief employees to the tour and work schedule of regular or swing employees without imposing a penalty on the Employer. I read Clause 4 of Article 18A as a clear statement that relief employees assume "the unfilled tour and work week" of the employee being relieved. It seems to me to make sense in the kind of operation in which the Company is engaged that the relieving employee should stand in the place of the relieved employee in regard to the work schedule. If it were otherwise, that is, that the relief employee is entitled to rest days different from those of the employee he is relieving, the Company would be required to find another employee to relieve the relief employee on those days off. In my opinion Article 18A is designed to provide the flexibility to prevent that from happening. It is an essential part of the concept of relief employees. In the present case, the relief assignment resulted in the grievor’s days off being delayed but in other circumstances his days off could be moved forward depending on the schedule of the person being relieved.

There is no suggestion of bad faith or discrimination on the part of the Company, nor is there any suggestion that this relief assignment was allocated inequitably contrary to the provisions of Article 18.7(a).

It was suggested that the Company could have covered the tour of duty by assigning overtime work but that makes no sense to me. No doubt most, if not all, relief work could be covered in that fashion but the Company should not be required to pay a penalty when it has negotiated a provision in the collective agreement which makes that unnecessary.

It is my opinion that the assignment made here is precisely the kind of assignment which the provisions of Article 18A are designed to permit.

I have reviewed the Award of Mr. O’Shea in the Osbourne case which was filed with us. In that case the grievor had relieved another employee while on vacation and assumed the vacationing employee’s work week and days off. When the grievor reverted to his own job he reverted to his own schedule of days off, resulting in the grievor working seven consecutive days without a rest day. The Arbitrator found there was no entitlement to premium pay stating,

 

"Rest days are assigned to an employee in accordance

with the shift the employee is scheduled to work".

In my view that is precisely the concept which should be applied in this case.

In the result I would find that the collective agreement expresses a clear intention that relief employees assume the unfilled tour and work week of the employee being relieved including the rest days of the relieved employee. I would dismiss the grievance.

 

 

DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of January, 1980.

 

 

(sgd.) S. E. Dinsdale

______________________________

Company Nominee