©b59r AD HOC 138

IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 112 OF THE B.C. LABOUR

CODE IN A DISPUTE

BETWEEN: THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Company")

AND: THE UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION,'LOCALS NO. 1178 AND 1923

(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Union")

Section 112 Investigator: Brian Foley

Appearing For The Company: D. Pysh, D. Sawchuk, R. Neilsen

Appearing For The Union: C. Mulhall, R. Riehl

Date And Place Of Meeting(s) With

The Parties: June 6, 1983, at Vancouver, B.C.

Date Of Written Report: June 13, 1983

ISSUE: Collective Agreement Interpretation - Article 201(9)

Automatic Terminal Release (Freight Service)

©b69r I

By agreement between the Company and the Union, the undersigned was

appointed under Section 112 of the B.C. Labour code to investigate

grievances and make written recommendations to the parties for their

resolution. In May 1983, the parties requested a recommendation with

respect to the interpretation of Article 201(9) of the collective

agreement, namely, "Automatic Terminal Release". A meeting with the

parties was held in Vancouver on June 6, 1983. At this meeting, the

parties agreed %hat the grievance investigator was properly

constituted and had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in

dispute. In addition, the parties agreed that the investigator's

recommendations would be final and binding.

©b67r II

Article 201(9) of the collective agreement is entitled "Automatic

Terminal Release (Freight Service)" and it prescribes as follows:

"A trip will end automatically on arrival at a terminal

except as otherwise provided and ©u20rTrainmen will not be

©u58rrequired to do work other than storing their own train and

©u27rplacing locomotive to shops.

Crew may be required to spot stock from their own train on

arrival at terminal if no yard crew on duty.

With respect to mixed, wayfreight or switcher assignments in

turnaround service in cases where turnaround point is

terminal for unassigned crews, automatic terminal release

will not apply at turnaround point.

The meaning of terminal is understood to be the regular

points between which crews regularly run, i.e., assigned by

bulletin."

(emphasis added)

The parties are agreed that, in accordance with the above-noted

Article, incoming trainmen at a terminal may be required by the

Company to store their own train cars and place the train's

locomotive in the shop facility if it requires servicing and/or

repairs. The parties are also agreed that incoming trainmen may be

required to place in the shop any locomotive that can be considered

part of the Headend Engine Consist.

The present dispute arose over remote control locomotives and

incoming trainmen's responsibilities relating thereto pursuant to

Article 201(9). Remote control locomotives are placed in-train and

are operated by remote control from the leading locomotive of a train

by the engineer. Remote control locomotives have been in use by the

Company since early 1970 and they were introduced into the various

regions on different dates.

At two of the Company's principal terminals, namely North Vancouver

and Prince George, remote control locomotives are ©u8rnormally placed in

shop facilities either by yard crews or outgoing trainmen. on

occasion, however, incoming trainmen have performed the task without

incident.

In Chetwynd, yard crews are only on duty for certain hours and when

they are not on duty, incoming trainmen have been asked to place the

remote control locomotives in the shop facilities. Incoming trainmen

have complied with that type of request on at least seven specific

occasions since the remote control locomotives were introduced into

Chetwynd in late 1980 early 1981.

The present dispute arose in late 1982 when an incoming crew at

Chetwynd took objection to the Company's requirement that they place

the remote control locomotive in the shop facility. The trainmen

complied with the requirement but subsequently filed a grievance.

That grievance is the subject of the present investigation.

©b66r III

The Union takes the position that a remote control locomotive is not

part of the headend consist of locomotives and therefore cannot be

considered a "locomotive" for the purposes of Article 201(9). The

Union argues that the remote control locomotive is not part of the

headend consist since it is in fact cut into the train and is not

normally coupled to the headend units. It is the Union's view that

once in the rail yard, the remote control locomotive is no longer

under the control of the engineer and in fact is then no different

than a boxcar. That being the case, it is argued that Article 201(9)

only requires incoming trainmen to store the remote control

locomotive, not place it in the shop facility. The Union argues that

if there is a requirement that the remote control locomotive be

placed in the shop, that task should more properly be carried out

either by the yard crew (if they can be made available) or by the

outgoing trainmen.

It is the Company's position that since the inception of the remote

control locomotive, it has been considered part of the headend engine

consist and has been considered as a "locomotive" for the purposes of

Article 201(9). It is argued that since remote control locomotives

are operated from a single control by an engineer in the leading unit

of a train, they must properly be considered as an integral part of

the locomotive consist of a train; reference in this regard is made

to the definition of an engine as set out in the Uniform Code Of

Operating Rules: "A unit propelled by any form of energy or a

combination of such units operated from a single control used in

train or yard service".

The Company argues that, historically, incoming trainmen have

regularly, and without any reluctance, placed remote control

locomotives in shop facilities when they have been asked to do so by

the Company; to buttress these arguments, the Company has presented

evidence relating to this practice over recent years. It is argued

that the Union cannot therefore now take the position that performing

such a task is beyond the responsibilities of incoming trainmen let

alone take the position that remote control locomotives are not part

of the train's locomotive consist.

In support of its position, the Company has tendered as evidence a

number of arbitration decisions which purport .to support the

argument that a remote control locomotive is in fact a "locomotive"

for the purposes of Article 201(9) and therefore incoming trainmen

may be required to place it in shop facilities.

As an alternative argument, the Company argues that, even if a remote

control locomotive is not considered a locomotive for the purpose of

Article 201(9), nevertheless incoming trainmen can be required to

"store" it wherever the Company dictates (i.e., even in the shop).

In the Company's view, there is no wording in the collective

agreement to restrict management's right to require incoming trainmen

to place remote control locomotives in shop facilities.

©b67r IV

In interpreting Article 201(9) of the collective agreement, I have

been asked to direct my attention to the question whether the Company

can require incoming trainmen to place remote control locomotives in

shop facilities for servicing/ repairs. In doing so, I must give

meaning to the following words,:

"...Trainmen will not be required to do work other than

storing their own train and placing locomotive to shop,"

I have considered the various arguments of the parties and the

evidence they presented against the above wording.

In my view, the words "...placing locomotive to shop" are exclusive

in nature. The requirement to "place to shop" is limited to

"locomotive" and unless a traincar can be properly categorized as a

"locomotive", the Company cannot require incoming trainmen to place

any such traincar to shop; that is to say, the Company can only

require that "locomotives" be placed to shop by incoming trainmen.

That conclusion having been reached, the key question to deter.-.One

is whether a remote control locomotive is a "locomotive" within the

meaning of Article 201(9).

In my effort to reach a conclusion in that regard, I have considered

the fact that the word "locomotive" appears in the title of "remote

control locomotive". I have also considered the fact that while

operational, a remote control locomotive is under the control of the

engineer and can be considered to fall under the definition of

engine; although the remote control locomotive is cut into the train,

it is under the engineers control and must therefore be considered

part of the headend consist. Finally, I have considered the fact

that, in the past, incoming trainmen have at least occasionally or

periodically treated the remote control locomotive as a "locomotive"

and have placed it in shop facilities.

None of these considerations alone is determinative of the issue.

Rather, the cumulative effect of all these considerations has led me

to the conclusion that a remote control locomotive is in fact a

locomotive within the meaning of Article 201(9). It is my view

therefore that the Company has the right pursuant to Article 201(9)

to require incoming trainmen to place remote control locomotive in

shop facilities.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Dated at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 13th day of June, 1983.

BRIAN FOLEY,

INVESTIGATOR