AH - 206
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
THE CANADIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION,
DIVISION NO 1 OF THE UNITED TELEGRAPH WORKERS
(the ”Union”)
AND
CANADIAN PACIFIC LIMITED
(TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT)
(the “Company”)
Sole Arbitrator: S. M. Beck
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
H. C. Wendlandt, Counsel
There appeared on behalf of the Union:
Paul Cavaluzzo, Counsel
A hearing in this matter was held at Toronto, Ontario, on the 6th day of April, 1978.
This arbitration concerns the lay-off of Carol Chambers (Chambers) and Joan McPhee (McPhee) by their employer CP Telecommunications (the company) in June of 19777 and the grievances of P. Joly, H.F. Hagan and V. M. Muldoon with respect to being over taxed as a result of those lay-offs. Both McPhee and Chambers were employed at the company’s Sudbury station which is part of the company’s Public message Service which operates on a Canada-wide basis for telecommunication transmission. The grievors are members of the Canadian Telegraph Workers ( the union) and subject to a collective agreement between the Canadian pacific Limited (Telecommunications Department) and the union. The essential issue in the case is whether the lay-off at the Sudbury station, which reduced the employee complement at the station from five to three., resulting in a breach of Article 17 of the collective agreement. Subsequent to the filing of the grievance by McPhee and Chambers, two more grievances were filed in July of 1977, the first by all five employees in the office, including the two who were laid off, and the second by two who were not laid off and Joan McPhee. The essential import of these grievances is that the office staff was taxed beyond its capacity after the lay-offs had taken place. There was some dispute as to the validity of these grievances, the argument being that Article 26 of the collective agreement provided only for individual grievances and did not recognize what was referred to as a group grievance. I am satisfied that these grievances are within the intent of Article 26 and that at least insofar as the remaining employees are concerned they were individually and as a group, alleging a violation of Article 17 of the collective agreement. A second issue that arises is whether the agent at the Sudbury station, M. L. Penned (Penned) is performing work that comes within the classifications set out in the collective agreement and therefore is in breach of Article 2.01 of the agreement . This matter is also grieved in the group grievance of July 25, 1977.
The back ground to the lay-offs of Chambers and McPhee is that for economic reasons the company decided to close its telegraph offices at Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay as a result of which telegrams previously directed to those offices were now routed through the Sudbury office. However, within a few months the company determined that the Sudbury office as also uneconomic, notwithstanding the increased message traffic and decided to lay off two employees. The original employees laid off exercised their seniority rights with the ultimate result that McPhee and Chambers were layed-off in June of 1976. The grievances noted above were filed shortly after the lay-offs.
The essence of the case for the grievors is that with the increased traffic in the Sudbury office which resulted from the closing of the Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay offices, it is simply not possible to do the work with three employees rather than the former five. To put the matter in a nutshell, the company at tone and the same time has increased the traffic and cut the staff with the result that the remaining staff considers itself overtaxed as that term is used in Article 17 of the collective agreement and alleges a violation of the collective agreement. When the matter was put to management, as the evidence below will show, it was its position that it would be uneconomic to increase the staff above three and it had no intention of doing so . The evidence of the witnesses is as follows.
Carol Chambers joined the company in Sudbury in October of 1956 and has been employed in the telegraph office for the past eleven years until her lay-off on the 13trh of June, 1977. Prior to June of 1977, the office was staffed by two teleprinter operators, Chambers and McPhee; one senior clerk , P. Joly (Joly; two clerks, H. F. Hagan (Hagan) and V. M. Muldoon (Muldoon); and one agent-supervisor, Pender. Chambers was aksed to describe her duties of the senior clerk (who was Joly who has since died). Chambers described her duties as balancing the cash sheet, balancing money transfers from previous day, counting income traffic and sorting it out, doing the same for outgoing traffic, entering all relevant figures into the ledger, handling teltex billings and messages returned from CN and U. S. for billing and boat messages (ship to shore) for billing. Apart from those specific matters, she answered the phones and relieved the other clerks. Chambers estimated that Joly spent four and a half to five hours on her basic bookkeeping duties. With the elimination of the senior clerk’s position, Chambers testified that Pender, the agent-supervisor who is not a member of the union, now took care of the cash sheets, money transfers, sorting traffic in and out, ledger entries, billing, night letters and relieved the other three employees on their breaks. It will be noticed that, according to Chambers, Pender was now doing the work previously done by the senior clerk who was then Joly.
As to Chambers, she was formally a teleprinter operator. As such, her duties were handling all tape messages for relay points and sending out all relay telex messages as well as helping on the phones and the counter. She estimated that 85 - 90% of her time would be on the machines and 10 - 15% would be spent assisting on the phones and counter. There was entered as an exhibit running totals of messages send and received for the month of June 1977 through to February 1978. Chambers testified that she compiled the list and counted the traffic herself. The list is as follows:
1977
Month Sent Rcvd. Total
June 1332 3337 4669
July 2414 5331 7445
August 1355 5707 7062
September 1358 2594 3952
October 1416 2432 3848
November 1376 2162 3538
December 1307 3052 4359
1978
January 1105 1850 2910
February 1181 3119 4300
Under cross-examination, Chambers agreed that after June 13th she was not employed as an operator. As to when she counted the messages her answer was that she counted them prior to the hearing of this grievance. (Chambers was employed by the company but in a different capacity in a different office as a result of an applications she made when a job was posted). Chambers testified that she counted the traffic as filed in the office during her lunch hours and on her breaks. She acknowledged that she knew that there was a computer count of all messages although she said that she had not seen it and did not know what its figures would show. She also agreed that Joly, who was then the senior clerk, sat in a very different area of the telegraph office from her and that there was a physical division between them. She specifically agreed that she could not see the work that Joly performed and moreover she would be busy 85 to 90% of her time teleprinting. With respect to the volume of traffic, she testified that there was a material difference in the number of messages once the Sudbury office took over from Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay, both of which offices were closed in December o f;1976.
When asked how she knew what work Pender performs when she was laid off in June 1977, Chambers said that she relieved in the office in October of 1977 for one week and that she was called back into the office in February of 1978. Chambers did agree that at the time she filed the grievance she did not know exactly what work Pender did - in other words, her testimony as to what Pender did depended, as she said, on what she heard from other or what she see in October 1977 and February 1978. On re-examination, Chambers testified that she worked with Joly for a period of eleven years when Joly was the senior clerk.
The next witness was Hagan who has worked in the Sudbury office of the company for twenty-seven years and for eleven of those years in the telegraph office. In the late fall of 1971, Hagar occupied Joly’s position as senior clerk for two months. She testified that she basically agreed with Chambers’ description of Joly’s duties as senior clerk. She added that the senior clerk also did a monthly balance sheet which took two to three days. When asked who performs these duties now, Hagan’s reply was Pender “I imagine”. She said she assumed that Pender did it because none of the other three employees in the office do that work and it gets done, therefore the conclusion that Pender is the one who is doing it.
As to the job that a clerk performs, Hagan described it as answering the telephones, taking telegrams, phoning out incoming telegrams and relieving at the counter at lunch and on breaks. She testified that after the lay-offs in June of 1977 that her duties were to answer the telephone, usually she was the only one who was available to do that, and phone message out. She testified that sometimes the other operators “if they have the time” and Pender helped her phone telegraph messages out. She no longer relieves on the counter. There are five telephones in the office.
With respect to the grievance filed on July 25th, Hagan was asked to describe the situation. She said that the office was three days behind in handling incoming and outgoing traffic. She said that often the telephones were unanswered, that the staff worked one half later every evening and that the staff skipped over their breaks and ate lunch on the job.
Under cross-examination Hagan said that since 1951 she had been a clerk and that she was now a senior clerk and that her responsibilities were to answer the telephones and phone out messages and that was the extent of her duties. However, Hagan added that there are five telephones and that she cannot keep up with simply answering the phones and phoning messages out. Hagan testified that she worked din the office when a Mr. White was the agent-supervisor and she agreed that he was not unionized. When asked whether she ever saw Mr. White taking messages on the phone and phoning messages out, she agreed that she had. She also agreed that White worked on the counter, delivered messages, and counted and sorted incoming and outgoing traffic. She did testify that she did not recall seeing him doing any billings or accounting. She also testified that a Mr. Bresnahan, who also acted as agent-supervisor for a time, did not answer the phones because he had a speech defect but he did deliver messages, did some of the banking and generally assisted as the need arose. Again, however, Hagan testified that she did not remember Bresnahan doing the daily balances or taking cash.
Under cross-examination, Hagan agreed that prior to the shut-down of the Sault Ste. Marie and north Bay offices the traffic in Sudbury office was slow. She specifically testified that the staff was not fully occupied and had time to spare. In her words “we might have had an extra coffee or read a newspaper”. She said that after the closing of those tow offices that the Sudbury office was busier and could handle the traffic with five employees but in her opinion could not handle it after the lay-offs with three employees. When asked whether the day was no fuller at the Sudbury office, Hagan replied that the day was “over loaded”. With respect to working an extra half hour each day to catch up and to skipping their breaks and working on their lunch break, hagan agreed that they were not requested by the company to take such action - indeed, she said that the company wouldn’t even be aware of the fact that they were doing it. She said that the employees in the office were used to giving service and the “we couldn’t stand the situation”. When asked whether her prescribed duties are now reduced , Hagan agreed that they were although she was now doing the job that two people used to do and that she could not keep up with the five phones for which she was responsible.
The next witness was McPhee. McPhee was a teleprinter operator until her lay-off in June although she remained in the office until November of 1977 doing relief work. McPhee stated that she agreed with the testimony of Chambers and Hagan with respect to the tasks performed by Joly when she was the senior clerk although she added that Joly also typed the money transfers both sent and received. As to who did the work after June that Joly did prior to June, McPhee expressed the opinion that Pender did the work. She was primarily of that opinion because she was not aware that anybody else in the office did it and therefore Pender must be doing it. With respect to White and Bresnahan, it was essentially McPhee’s evidence that they did not do the work that Joly did when she was senior clerk.
When asked what the duties of a teleprinter operator were, McPhee said that they were to take message and run off the tapes and that would take 85% of her day. Another 15% would be assisting the clerk’s job on the counter, answering the phones and phoning messages out. After the lay-off the situation was that there was one person on the counter and one handling the teleprinter operations (as opposed to two previously). As mentioned above, McPhee stayed on as relief help until November of 1977. With respect to the overwork situation, she testified that there was simply not enough hours to complete the message traffic handled. Therefore the employees in the office took it upon themselves to clean things up. She said that they were all of the opinion that “urgent messages should not be left unsent”. She testified that she stayed every evening for one and a half months after the lay-offs.
Under cross-examination, McPhee testified that she complained frequently to Pender asking for help to be brought in. When asked why she didn’t take her lunch break, she replied that it was because the office was getting numerous complaints with respect to incoming and outgoing traffic. McPhee agreed that the billing procedure in the office had changed considerably and that it is now done through Montreal by computer as to due bills and monthly accounts. As to her relief work, McPhee testified that she relieved the one clerk and two operators and essentially spent half her time on the counter and half her time on the machine. She also relieved Hagan, the clerk, who took calls and phones out only. McPhee stopped relief work in November of 1977 when a position was posted and she accepted a job in the service department. As to what went on in the telegraph office between June and November of 1977 McPhee testified that all the employees adapted well to their new positions but there was a different from of work for each of the employees. McPhee said that Pender told her that they were not allowed to bring anybody back and that the employees should not work overtime as the company would not want to pay overtime.
W, Harding (Harding) who for the past five years has been the manager of the company’s Public Message Service was the company’s only witness. Harding testified that the Public Message Service was the company’s only witness. Harding testified that the Public Message Service stations are staffed much the same ways as the station in Sudbury although the number of employees would vary. At each station it is normal to have an agent-supervisor who is the person totally responsible for the efficient operation of the office. Three of the company’s offices, Brandon, Kamloops and Nelson are all on one man offices and the one individual chare carries the title of agent. He described Pender’s functions at Sudbury as being exactly what the other agent-supervisors do in the other stations no matter now many employees there may be.
With respect to the decision to lay-off two employees at Sudbury, Harding stated that the profitability of the Public Message Service is poor overall and that a close watch is kept on every office. As volume decreases it is common to either decrease the staff or close the office. With respect to northern, Ontario, the original plan was to close Sault Ste. Marie, North Day and Sudbury but this was changed to keep Sudbury open and direct the Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay traffic through that station. As to the traffic volume at Sudbury, Harding testified that in late 1976 the monthly volume of messages, in and out, was in excess of 4, 000. He testified that a switching computer in Montreal counts every message received by and sent from every office in the system. An exhibit prepared by Harding showed the total number of messages through the Sudbury office from January 1977 to February 1978, and also showed the revenue and expenditures month by month for the Sudbury office. See Appendix 1
It will be noticed that for the month of July and August of 1977 there is a very large discrepancy between the exhibit tendered by Chambers according to her hand count and the exhibit tendered by Harding which is the count of the computer. There was also a fairly significant discrepancy for February of 1978. With that exception, the figures supplied by Harding and those s by Chambers are fairly close although Chambers are higher by some three or four hundred in almost every instance. Harding said he could not explain the difference for July and August, the computer showed 4,025 and that is the figure he put down. (It was Chambers’ testimony that there was a mail strike during July and August of 1977 which accounted for the rapid increase in volume). Harding said that the company was dissatisfied with the increase in traffic in Sudbury, they thought that a good deal more would result from the closing of Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay. When asked how many messages an employee should handle, Harding replied 1,200 per month of all types. When asked how he arrived at that figure, Harding said is was based on experience in comparing offices and then establishing an average workload. He did say that in some offices, the average was higher - being 1, 800 in Brandon and 1,500 to 1,700 in two other offices. He expressed the opinion that there would be no undue strain from an employee handling 1,300 messages per month. When asked how three employees were established for Sudbury, Harding said it was simply a matter of taking the average and that when one looked at the traffic in Sudbury it was clear that three employees could handle it.
Under cross-examination Harding agreed that the Public Message Service had made a profit in each of the last four years and was profitable for 1977. He agreed that the company’s greatest interest in on the expenditure side - that is, is the office making money and increased traffic does not necessarily equal increased revenues. The primary concern in the number of employees that is required to handle the traffic as the greatest expenditure for the employees in an office. Another exhibit was tendered which showed the revenues and expenses of a number of offices for 1976-77 and also the messages per month per employee. The testimony was that Oshawa is the office closest in size to Sudbury and it will be noted from the exhibit (Appendix 2) that Oshawa handles 817 messages per month in 1976 and 674 per month in 1977. Harding was asked if the 1,200 message per employee per month average figure would still be fair when one employee was on the counter and when only one employee was on the machine. Harding replied that in his opinion it would still be fair. The figures with respect to revenues, expenses and message per month of the other offices are listed on Appendix 3.
Harding also expressed the opinion that it was not possible that one clerk would spend all her time on the counter in the Sudbury office. Harding was closely questioned about his visit to the Sudbury office. He agreed that when he visited the off he found that they were behind in their work. He also agreed that he had to wait for four hours for the employees to catch up with their work before they could see him and he also agreed that he told them there would be no increase in the staff complement in the office. He also agreed that the message total on his exhibit did not include teltex messages which the employees are also responsible for nor did it include newspaper messages. Harding was firm that Chambers figures for July and August particularly could not be correct as there was close to 100% difference. He said that there could not be more than a 10% difference and he was absolutely sure that the number of teltex messages would not make that kind of difference and no other message are recorded on the computer. He did agree that traffic does increase in the summer and that it was possible that traffic would increase again this summer. With respect to the one man operation at Brandon, Kamloops and Nelson, Harding was referred to page 110 of the collective agreement and the classification of agents and he agreed that the agents in the one man offices are in fact covered by the collective agreement. On re-examination, Harding testified that there are seven offices where the agent is not covered by the collective agreement. As to teltex messages, he said that in Sudbury they would represent about 10% of the total on an average basis. With respect to the other offices, Harding said that two staff had been laid off at Oshawa, that Kenora and Brandon will be closed and that if Sudbury continues to lose money it could also be closed.
It is on the state of the above evidence that the decision in this case must be rendered. The decision is particularly difficult by the nature of the grievance and the remedies being sought. It is not as precise as one would like it. Moreover, the nature of the case is such that one is forced, on not totally satisfactory evidence, into making judgements on conditions at the work place and to perhaps second guessing the economic judgment of the employer as to the most efficient operation of its stations. Nonetheless, a decision must be rendered on the facts. Dealing first with the preliminary objections raised by counsel for the company, I believe the grievances to be well founded notwithstanding the fact that they are by no means perfect. The individual and group grievances of June and July are clear as to the complain and as to the relevant sections of the collective agreement and although I agree that they are not as precise in form as one would like, I believe they are sufficient that this grievance ought to be heard on the merits. I ma fortified in this by a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court, Communications Union of Canada vs. Bell Canada (Ontario Divisional Court - October 15, 1976). In that case, solicitors for the company raised a technical objection that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction on the basis that procedures se out in the collective agreement had not been properly followed. In giving the unanimous judgement of the Divisional Court, which upheld the decision of the arbitration board which dismissed the company’s objection, Mr. Justice Osler stated that:
“Nothing can be more calculated to exacerbate relations between employers and employees, than to hold that their differences, plainly designed to be finally settled by arbitration as the statute requires, cannot be examined because of a defect in form.”
The statute which Mr. Justice Osler was referring to is the Canada Labour Code, which is the relevant statute in this case, More specifically, he was referring to section 155(1) of the Canada Labour Code which provides that every collective agreement shall provide for final settlement of all differences between the parties concerning the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the collective agreement. In referring to the award of the first board of arbitration, which had upheld the technical objections of the company, as opposed to the award of the second board of arbitration which had dismissed the objections, Mr. Justice Osler said that the first board had “…placed upon the procedural section of the agreement considered by them an interpretation that would frustrate the purpose of the statute and the intention of the parties by making it impossible to achieve final and binding settlement of the difference between them. …it is the duty of the board to construe the agreement in light of the statutory context, namely as an instrument for settling all disputes between the parties or between employees and employer.” It is in that context that I would dismiss the technical objection of counsel for the company and determine this grievance on merit.
As to the merits of the case, I am satisfied that there ha has been a violation of both Article 17 and Article 2.01 of the collective agreement. There is no question that the traffic in the Sudbury office increased after the closing of the offices in North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie in December of 1976. Whether one accepts Chambers exhibit or Harding’s exhibit as being correct, and I am inclined to accept Harding’s exhibit as in all likelihood being more accurate than Chambers’ hand count done during lunch period and other breaks, it was agreed that the traffic ha din fact increased. Hagan was frank to say that the Sudbury office was not particularly busy prior to December of 1976 but it became quite busy after that date and was swamped after the lay-off of the two employees in June of 1977. Some of the clearest evidence with respect to the increase in traffic of 1976 and the company’s attitude toward that increase is contained in the exhibits attached to the written statement of facts and issues submitted by the company at the hearing of this arbitration. On June 21, Chambers wrote to Pender complaining about the lay-offs and the increased traffic. In that letter, she set out the traffic figures for December through May of 1975-76 and compared it with the traffic figures for Decembers 1976 through May 1977. Those figures are as listed on Appendix 4. On July 18, 1977 Pender replied to Chambers and stated that:
“The traffic figures, which you provided, are essentially correct and reflect the additional traffic being handled as a result of the closing of our offices in Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay, but the volume was still insufficient to justify the staff which existed prior to the lay-off.”
In other words, Pender, on behalf of the company, stated that the figures comparing 1975-76 with 1976-77 were essentially correct. It will be seen from the figures supplied by Chambers that there was a considerable increase in traffic at the Sudbury office after the closing of the other two offices in northern Ontario. Indeed, the company agrees with this but they were disappointed at the size of the increase and were also disappointed at the continuing loss situation as reflected in the figures supplied by Harding and therefore determined to lay off two employees.
The evidence of the employees is fairly conclusive as to an over-loaded situation at the Sudbury office. Harding did not deny that that was the case and counsel for the union fairly observes that Pender was not called to deny that that was the case, or indeed to give testimony as to what his duties were either before or after the lay-offs. Although Harding said that the average employee, based on a system wide analysis, should be able to handle 1,200 messages per month, on the figures in his own exhibit the office that is closest to Sudbury in size, Oshawa, handled 817 messages per month in 1976 and 674 messages per month in 1977. Moreover, the Kamloops and Kenora offices are also considerably below 1,200 messages per month. The one office that seems to be rather exceptional is Brandon and that is a one man office. Even if one were to take a thousand messages a month as what an employee should be able to do, the company’s own figures show that the Sudbury office was usually above and sometimes considerably above three thousand messages per month. Harding himself agreed when he visited the office the employees were behind and he had to wait some four hours before he could talk to one employee.
Having decided that the three remaining employees were swamped, at least at particular times, does that constitute a violation of Article 17 of the agreement? Article 17 reads as follows:
The performance of employees shall be fair and reasonable. An employee who considers himself overtaxed, may make representation to his immediate superior and, it the complaint is well founded, relief shall be afforded. In considering the complaint, due regard shall be had for the requirements of the service and the ability of the employee and any other factor relevant thereto.
I notice that what is called for is fair and reasonable performance of an employee. We have here employees who consider themselves overtaxed making a representation and the company deciding that the complaint is not well founded and therefore not affording relief. It seems to me that it is no answer to the employees’ complaint for the employer to say that the employees were not requested to and are not expected to skip their lunch hour or their coffee breaks or to work overtime. If employees are required to work in an atmosphere where the job, particularly when the public is being serviced, is not being done and phones are not being answered, then the work situation becomes intolerable. Moreover, Article 17 itself says that in considering the complaint “due regard shall be had for the requirements of the service”, and in that context I find that the company has not shown due regard for the requirements of the service. Employees simply cannot continue to work in the atmosphere described by the witness in this case - and I would point out that their evidence was not contradicted in cross-examination nor did the company choose to call any witness that could contradict their evidence as to what was actually occurring in the Sudbury office.
I readily understand the position of the company when it is running the Sudbury office at a constant loss. And one can understand the company’s decision to lay off two employees in an effort to cut that loss - and the evidence is that the situation is still being run at a loss, However, that does not justify the company in carrying on its operations in breach of the collective agreement particularly when so to do is to place the remaining employees in an intolerable working situation. Accordingly, the grievance is allowed and it is ruled that there has been a violation of Article 17, insofar as the three remaining employees at the Sudbury office are concerned. The grievances of Chambers and McPhee, insofar as they are grieving their lay-offs, are dismissed. It is only the remaining employees who may claim a violation of Article 17 in that they are overtaxed. As to remedy, I do not feel that it is my place at this time to suggest the number, if any, of employees who should be retained in the Sudbury office. That is a matter to be worked out between the company and the union. I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to say whether one more employee or two more employees are required at this time. Moreover, I am conscious that what we are dealing with here is a situation which might well change in terms of volume of traffic over time. Indeed, the traffic figures for November and December of 1977 and January and February of 1978, indicate that three employees might well be able to handle that volume. However, the traffic will undoubtedly increase in the summer months and some adjustment would be required. I am also conscious that it is within the company’s right to decide to close the office down if it is uneconomical, and the union must also be conscious of that fact. Accordingly, I uphold the grievance of the three remaining employees as to a breach of Article 17 and direct that the company and the union are to meet to attempt to remedy that breach. If they are not able to do so, I will retain jurisdiction in the matter and will hear further argument.
As to Article 2.01, the uncontradicted evidence is that Pender was doing work that falls within the classifications listed in Article 2. In this context, I would note that Article 2.01 makes reference to being “…required to devote any portion of their time to work performed within those classifications…” That is a very strict paragraph and I accept the evidence that Pender was devoting some portion of his time at work that comes within the listed classifications. Certainly, there was no evidence that contradicted that of the members of the union. Pender was not called to indicate the work he had performed both before and after June of 1977. I make no ruling as to remedy but leave the matter to be worked out between the company and the union as the resolution of the breach of Article 17 also involves the question of the breach of Article 2.01 I will retain jurisdiction to hear further argument if the parties are not able to settle the matte. Again, I would note that we are dealing here with a question of an uneconomic operation and the need for a sense of reasonableness and responsibility on the part of the individuals involved to settle the matter. It seems fairly clear that not only Pender, but also his predecessors as agent-supervisor would, during the course of a day, do some work that would fall within a classification in the bargaining unit. That is not surprising given the nature of the operation of a telegraph office and the better part of wisdom might well be some accommodation on this point notwithstanding the strict wording of Article 2.01.
Dated at Toronto this 26th day of July, 1978.
S. M. Beck
APPENDIX 1
MONTH - 1977. SENT RECD. TOTAL
June 1332 3337 4669
July 2414 5331 7445
August 1355 5707 7062
Sept. 1358 2594 3952
Oct. 1416 2432 3848
Nov. 1376 2162 3538
Dec. 1307 3052 4359
Jan. -78 1105 1850 2910
Feb 1181 3119 4300
APPENDIX 2
Sudbury
1977 Messages Revenue Expenditure
JAN $3,212 $6,671 $10,057
FEB 3,122 6,696 13,292
MARCH 3,650 9,055 13,292
APR 3,908 7,591 9,620
MAY 4,025 7,557 9,821
JUNE 4,134 7,920 11,122
JULY 3,529 6,742 9,468
AUG 4, 058 8,460 10,111
SEPT 3,693 11,290 10, 241
OCT 3, 359 7,934 9,149
NOV 3, 080 7,743 9,365
DEC 3,179 8,152 7,643
1978
JAN 2,696 7,664 7,110
FEB 2,825 7, 818 6,481
APPENDIX 3
1976
OFFICE REVENUE EXPENSES MESSAGES PER MONTH PER EMPLOYEE
Oshawa $ 69,000 $ 86, 000 817
Kamloops 29, 000 53,000 957
Nelson 31,000 39,000 1083
Kenora 13,000 24,000 892
Sherbrooke 40,000 42,000 1395
Brandon 23,000 22,000 1733
1977
OFFICE REVENUE EXPENSES MESSAGES PER MONTH PER EMPLOYEE
Oshawa $ 139,000 $ 144, 000 674
Kamloops 26, 000 38,000 895
Nelson 24,000 25,000 809
Kenora 12,000 27,000 908
Sherbrooke 42,000 46,000 1212
Brandon 25,000 28,000 1827
APPENDIX 4
December 1975 4,041 December 1976 4,163
January 1976 2,095 January 1977 3,194
February 1976 1,959 February 1977 3,189
March 1976 2,473 March 1977 3,942
April 1976 2,253 April 1977 3,918
May 1976 2,716 May 1977 4,194