©b69r AD HOC 130














A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal on December 15, 1977.

©u5rD. Du©u7rquette, for the union.

©u13rM.M. Yorston, for the company.




©b51r A W A R D


The Joint Statement of Issue agreed to by the parties in this matter

is as follows:

Joint Statement of Issue

1. On or about February 19, 1973, an office of the Northern

Alberta Railways was relocated from 10012 Jasper Avenue,

Edmonton, Alberta to 13025 St. Albert Trail, Edmonton,


2. As a result of the aforesaid office relocation, the place

of employment of Messrs. MacNaughton, Swanson, Gibson,

Hanasyk, McNalley and Ellstock changed from 10012 Jasper

Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta to 13024 St. Albert Trail,

Edmonton, Alberta.

3. On March 12, 1973, the Union claimed, on behalf of

Messrs. MacNaughton, Swanson, Gibson, Hanasyk, McNalley

and Ellstock, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per month each

for a period of twelve months following the aforesaid

office relocation.

4. The Company denied the claim.

5. The Union alleges that the Company, in declining the

claim, has violated the provisions of Article VII, Clause

7 of the Supplemental Agreement on Job Security -

Technological, Operational and Organizational Changes

executed May 20, 1971.

6. The Company denies the Union's allegations.


Article VII of the Job Security Agreement of May 20, 1971 deals with

the matter of relocation expenses. Clause 7 of that article is as


7) If an employee, who is eligible for moving expenses, does

not which to move his household to his new location, he

may opt for a monthly allowance of $25.00, which will be

payable so long as he remains at his new location for a

maximum of 12 months from date of transfer to his new

location. An employee claiming under this clause may

elect within such 12 month period to move his household

effects, in which case the amount paid out under this

clause shall be deducted from the relocation expenses



In the instant case, the employees for whom this claim is brought did

not wish to move their households, following the relocation of their

offices, described in the joint statement. They claim the right to

elect and to receive the optional payment referred to in clause 7.

The issue is whether they are " eligible for moving expenses" within

the meaning of Article VII.

The matter of eligibility for relocation expenses (i.e., eligibility

for "moving expenses" as referred to in clause 7) is dealt with in

clause (a) of article VII. Clause (a) is as follows:



(i) must have been laid off or displaced, under conditions

where such lay-off or displacement is likely to be of a

permanent nature, with the result that no work is

available at his home location and, in order to hold

other work on the railway, such employee is required to



(ii) must be engaged in work, which has been transferred to a

new location and the employee moves at the instance of

the company;



(iii) must be affected by a notice which has been issued under

Article VIII of this Agreement and he chooses to relocate

as a result of receiving an appointment on a bulletined

permanent vacancy which at the time is not subject to

notice of abolishment under Article VIII of this

Agreement and such relocation takes place in advance of

the date of the change, provided this will not result in

additional moves being made;


2) In addition to fulfilling at least one of the conditions

set forth above the employee:

(i) must have three years' cumulative compensated service as

defined in clause 7 of Appendix "C";


(ii) must be a householder, i.e., one who owns or occupies

unfurnished living accommodation. This requirement does

not apply to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Clause

(b) of this Article.


(iii) must establish that it is impractical for him to commute

daily to the new location by means other than privately

owned automobile.



Clause (a) (1) sets out three requirements, at least one of which

must be met by an employee claiming to be eligible for relocation

benefits. In the instant case, it is clear that sub-clause (i)

cannot be relied on by the employees, since they were not laid off or

displaced, but simply moved from one work location to another.

Further, sub-clause (iii) cannot be relied on, since this was not a

case in which a notice under article VIII of the Job Security

Agreement was issued.

The question whether or not sub-clause (ii) may be relied on is more

difficult. There was, as is clear from the joint statement, a

relocation of the office in which the grievor worked. After the

relocation, the employees reported to the new office, rather than the

old. Whether the new office was in a "new location" within the

meaning of the Job Security Agreement, and whether the employees

"moved" at the instance of the company are matters which are not so

clear. If by "location" reference is made to a particular point

within a municipality, then of course a new location was involved in

this case. If, on the other hand, "location" refers to a

municipality or a reasonably broad geographical area, then there was

no new location involved, the office being within the boundaries of

Edmonton in this case. Further the employees did not "move" in the

sense of moving their households or residences, although they did

move their work locations within the municipality.

When sub-clause (ii) is read in the context in which it appears, and

in relation to the other sub-clauses in question, it seems clear to

me that the terms "new location" and "moves" must be read having in

mind the sort of benefits which the article provides, which reveal

the purpose for which those terms are used. Such "relocation

benefits" are described in clause (b) of article VII and involve,

quite clearly, reimbursement in respect of expenses incurred in

moving a household from one community to another. The same

conclusion clearly appears from a consideration of clause (a) (1)

(i), set out above, where reference is made to an employee's "home

location", and clause (b) (6) (c) (i) where reference is made to

the sale of homes "in the municipality", being clearly a reference to

the municipality from which employees have been "relocated."

Accordingly, it is my view that on a proper reading of the agreement,

the condition set out in sub-clause (a) (1) (ii) of article VII has

not been met in this case, and the employees concerned are not

eligible for relocation benefits. The relocation of the company's

office within the boundaries of Edmonton did not involve the sort of

relocation of employees for which benefits are provided under article


Even if it had been shown that the employees concerned met at least

one of the conditions set out in sub-clause (a) (1) of article VII,

it would still have to be shown that they met all three of the

conditions set out in sub-clause (b) (2). It is acknowledged that

conditions (i) and (ii) therein were met. It has been shown,

however, that the new office location is served by public transport,

on two lines. One of these, the municipal line, takes passengers to

a point adjacent to the company's yard and about 8/10 of a mile by

private road from the office, or about 4/10 of a mile by a direct

route across yard trackage. At least in inclement weather, it is my

view such access cannot really be described as "practical". The

other line, however, an inter-city line, stops in front of the new

office location, and while this may require employees to cross a busy

thoroughfare, and while it may also involve transfers from other

lines and perhaps higher fares, it is not, I think, "impractical"

within the meaning of sub-clause (a) (2) (iii) of article 7.

In any event, as has been indicated above, I do not consider that the

relocation of the office in question was one which led to the

employees becoming eligible for relocation expenses under the job

Security agreement.

Accordingly, the grievance must be dismissed.

DATED at Toronto, this 16th day of January, 1978.


J.F. W. weatherill