AH - 166
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN
This grievance is one of interpretation as the facts have been admitted.
The facts can be thus summarized.
On October 28, 1963, Extra 8007 East, ordered for 7.00k, Port Alberni to Stockett (distance 61 miles) and off duty 14.05k, was required to unload steel at mileage’s 20.2 and 14.2, Port Alberni Subdivision. This work consumed 2 hours and 15 minutes. Fireman B. Kendall submitted a claim of 28 miles for this time in addition to a minimum day of 100 miles consisting of 61 road miles actually run and 39 not run. His claim was reduced to 100 miles minimum basic day plus 9 miles for initial terminal time, it being the Company’s contention that use of the 28 miles made in work train service enroute to make up a short day is consistent with the Collective Agreement.
The Union contends that the provision extended in Article 8, clause (h) in the current Collective Agreements between Canadian Pacific Railway Company and The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen constitutes a special allowance to road firemen when held for work train service enroute in excess of one hour and the time so made is not to be used in making up a minimum day.
The pertinent clauses of the collective Agreement are the following:-
1) Article 2, clause (c)
“Road fireman in short run passenger and freight service making less than 100 miles will be paid for 100 miles, but will be liable for further service to the extent of 8 consecutive hours at the rate of one hour for each 12 ½ miles to count as one hour’s service.”
2) Article 8, clause (h)
“Road fireman will be paid for work train service enroute when time occupied exceeds one hour and time so paid will not be included in computing overtime.”
In fact, the issue of this case relates particularly to the interpretation of Article 8, clause (h).
At a first reading, this clause tends to substantiate the union’s contention, as it might be interpreted to mean that arbitraries for work train service enroute should be paid to firemen, whenever this period exceeds one hour, even in short run service.
In the present case, employee Kendall claims payment for such work train service enroute, and the parties have admitted that the period in question exceeded one hour. However, the history of Article 8, clause (h), in the light of a more thorough examination of other pertinent clauses of the Collective Agreement renders the union’s contention less readily acceptable.
Article 8, clause (h) was incorporated in the present labour agreement in April 1962; it modified Article 8, clause (j) of the expired agreement, which read as follows:
“Road fireman held between terminals for work train service will be paid for time occupied in such service.”
The parties have admitted before the undersigned, that they have always interpreted Article 8 (j) in accordance with the company’s contention; that is, in short run service, work train service en route was not paid in addition to the minimum guaranteed work day of 100 miles or 8 hours. This work train service enroute was applied to make up a minimum day. Arbitrates were paid to employees only for such time in excess of the minimum work day.
The Union contends that Article 8, clause (h) is a new article incorporated in the collective Agreement to dispose of an entirely different working condition.
On the other hand, the Company contends that only change involved was to eliminate payment for firemen for work train service enroute, except when the time occupied in such service exceeds one hour, and also for the non-inclusion of the time paid so paid in computing overtime.
Furthermore, the Company argued that Article 8, clause (h) was proposed by it to affect uniformity with the same rule in the Engineers’ Collective Agreement which had been agreed to in the agreement signed with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on march 30th, 1962.
The Union replied that it is not bound by clauses of other collective agreements, nor by the interpretation thereof.
The undersigned wishes to mention that for several years, standard clauses in the Engineers’ Collective Agreement, have been incorporated in the agreements entered into between the present parties, and those clauses were similarly interpreted.
The undersigned is of the opinion that the wording of Article 8, clause (h) is at best ambiguous. If it is true that provision is made for payment of such services, this clause certainly does not provide clearly for this payment to be in addition to the minimum guaranteed day, nor specifically the contrary.
It is worth mentioning that the second paragraph of Article 2 clause (d) spells out clearly the only payments to be made in addition to the minimum day in short run services.
This Article 2 reads as follows:
“All time at terminals before the commencement of trip will be paid in addition to the guaranteed mileage.”
By inference, it can be said that payments made in respect of any other services rendered enroute, are used to the extent necessary to make up a minimum day.
Other clauses of the Collective Agreement, particularly Article 2, clauses (p) and(r) have always been interpreted according to the Company’s contention.
(p) “Switching to be paid for at junctions and turn-around points from time of arrival until departure of train.”
(r) “Freight fireman held 2 hours or over to load or unload stock, will be paid for all time so held at freight rate, each 5 minutes to count as 1 mile. This time not to be included in computing overtime.”
It is to be noted that the wording of these clauses is quite similar to the wording of Article 8, clause (h).
The undersigned has been particularly impressed by the argument submitted by the Company that each employee should get a full day’s work. This is a generally admitted principle.
In the present case, the Union’s interpretation would mean that an employee would receive more than a full’s day’s pay when in fact, he has worked less than a full day’s work. This interpretation is illogical.
For those reasons, the undersigned is of the opinion that the interpretation that the company gives to Article 8, clause (h) is more in accordance with the intent of the parties when they have negotiated and signed said Article.
The grievance is therefore denied.
THE WHOLE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, MONTREAL, this 30th of November 1964.