AH – 260




(the “Company”)



(the “Union”)




SOLE ARBITRATOR:                Michel G. Picher



There appeared on behalf of the Company:

Keith MacDonald                       Manager, Labour Relations, Edmonton

Mike A. Moroz                           Labour Relations Officer, Edmonton

W. B. (Bill) Blair                         Operations Coordinator, Vancouver

Lee A. Harms                            System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal


And on behalf of the Union:

Peter Seagris                            General Chairman, BLE, Winnipeg

D. J. Shewchuk                         Local Chairman, BLE, Vancouver

C. S. (Chuck) Lewis                   Secretary, General Committee of Adjustment

L. H. (Larry) Olson                     General Chairman, CN Lines West, Edmonton



A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on May 23, 1989.




Failure of the parties to reach agreement in accordance with Item No. 7 – Greater Vancouver Terminal Agreement of the Memorandum of Agreement between Canadian National Railway and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, dated October 1, 1987 which provided settlement of Regional proposals to Agreement 1.2 on the Prairie and Mountain Region.


On October 1, 1986 the Company served a demand on the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers to provide revision to Agreement 1.2 as follows:

9. Addendum No. 9 Greater Vancouver Terminal Agreement

Amend Addendum No. 9 of Agreement 1.2 to reflect current conditions and original intent.

Following a series of negotiations an agreement was reached with the BLE on the proposal as part of the settlement of Regional proposals to Agreement 1.2 on the Prairie and Mountain Regions dated October 1, 1987, which in turn formed part of the National Memorandum of agreement signed with the BLE dated February 25, 1988.

Item No. 7 on Page 2 of this Agreement with the BLE reads as follows:

Item 7 - Greater Vancouver Terminal Agreement

Resolved on the basis that the parties will meet during the closed period to resolve the application of the taxi arrangements contained in Addendum No. 9 of Agreement 1.2 This is not to indicate that there shall be any change whatsoever to the present Agreement (Addendum 9) in respect to pre April 23, 1969 employees.

Discussions will commence and be concluded within 120 days following the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement concerning National Negotiations.

If the parties are unable to reach an agreement within the 120 day period, either party may expedite the dispute to the CROA arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding upon both parties.

The issues which arise under this arbitration, as well as the history and facts, subject to slight variances not pertinent to its resolution, are virtually the same as those outlined in a concurrent award resulting from an arbitration between the Company and the United Transportation Union (AH-259). Both this grievance and the UTU grievance were heard in tandem on the same day.

Certain differences of record should, however, be noted. A Memorandum of Agreement dated December 10, 1970, emanating from the decision and recommendations of a Board of Review dated November 20, 1970 became the basis of the Vancouver Taxi Agreement governing the parties and incorporated within collective agreement 1.2 as addendum 9. As in the case of the UTU, on October 1, 1986 the Company served notice on the Brotherhood of its intention to re-negotiate addendum 9 of the Agreement to reflect current conditions and the parties’ original intent. On October 1, 1987, under Conciliation Officer M. Carson, the parties reached an agreement to attempt to negotiate the Vancouver taxi arrangement during the closed period of their collective agreement, subject to the protection of the vested rights of employees hired before April 23, 1969. In the event of an inability to resolve their dispute it was agreed that the parties would submit the matter to the CROA arbitrator for final and binding resolution. This procedural agreement became part of Arbitrator Larsen’s interest award and the Memorandum of Agreement of the parties signed accordingly in Montreal on February 5, 1988.

After a protracted process of negotiation a tentative agreement in principle was reached between the negotiating committees of the two parties on January 30, 1989. It was, however, subject to ratification by the members of the BLE local at Vancouver.

On presentation to the membership of the local, it was overwhelmingly rejected, in consequence of which the matter came on for hearing before this Arbitrator.

The interests, positions and arguments of the parties in this matter are virtually identical to those reviewed in some detail in the UTU arbitration award heard concurrently and issued the same date as this award. The only additional position of significance to note for the purposes of this award is the strong submission of the Company that the locomotive engineers at Vancouver should be treated in a manner similar to the UTU employees at that location in respect of the terms of the addendum to their collective agreement governing the transportation arrangements governing employees within the Greater Vancouver Terminal.

The Arbitrator appreciates fully the differences of identity as between the Brotherhood in the instant case and the UTU, which represents a separate body of employees. I also acknowledge the factual difference in the outcome of the ratification votes conducted among the locomotive engineers, who rejected the Memorandum of Agreement reached in respect of themselves more decisively than did the employees of the UTU bargaining unit. With due allowance for those differences, however, I am persuaded that the position of the Company in respect of the uniform treatment of running trades employees within the Greater Vancouver Terminal is more compelling than is the argument of the Brotherhood for any differential in treatment. The Locomotive Engineers and their counterparts in the United Transportation Union have virtually identical interests insofar as the application of the Vancouver Taxi Agreement is concerned: they live within and around the same metropolitan area, in a remarkably similar proportional distribution through the City of Vancouver and its various suburbs; they travel similar distances to work, along the same transportation routes, using the same pick-up points for similar tours of duty during which they are generally deployed as part of the same crews. There are, on the face of the record, no compelling industrial relations reasons why the Locomotive Engineers, whose treatment in respect of the Vancouver Taxi Agreement has been virtually identical to that of their UTU counterparts, should. be treated any differently in respect of the resolution of this dispute.

Having heard the submissions of the parties and reviewed the full record of the material filed, for all of the reasons related in the Award issuing on this date in respect of the arbitration between the Company and the United Transportation Union, the Arbitrator is satisfied that the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement reached between the parties to the instant dispute on January 30, 1989 constitute a fair and equitable resolution of this matter. I therefore adopt the Memorandum of Agreement as the order of this Board, to be implemented forthwith. For the purposes of clarity, the Memorandum of Agreement becomes the Award of the Arbitrator, and is appended to this Award as Appendix ‘A’. It may be noted that the copy of the Memorandum provided to the Arbitrator at the hearing does not have appended to it a list of locomotive engineers permanently assigned to the Greater Vancouver Terminal on April 23, 1969, which list was apparently appended to the Memorandum as Appendix ‘A’ to that document. The parties are therefore advised that that list should be considered as appended to the Memorandum for the purposes of the application and enforcement of this Award.

The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction in the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the interpretation or implementation of this decision.

DATED at Toronto this 1st day of June, 1989.