AH – 373
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LIMITED
OF RAILWAY OPERATING UNIONS
(UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION)
GRIEVANCE RE RUN-AROUND CLAIM ON BEHALF OF K.G. GRIFFIN, MOOSE JAW
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
R. E. Wilson – Manager, Labour Relations, Toronto
M. G. DeGirolamo – Director, Labour Relations, Montreal
M. E. Keiran – Manager, Labour Relations, Vancouver
G. Chehowy – Manager, Labour Relations, Montreal
L. J. Guenther – Labour Relations Officer, Vancouver
R. M. Smith – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal
H. B. Butterworth – Labour Relations Officer, Toronto
And on behalf of the Union:
V. H. Hamilton – Secretary (UTU), Lumbarby
L. O. Schillaci – General Chairperson (UTU), Calgary
R. S. McKenna – General Chairman (BLE), Barrie
D. C. Curtis – General Chairman (BLE), Calgary
D. A. Warren – General Chairperson (UTU), Toronto
B. L. McLafferty – Vice-General Chairperson (UTU), Moose Jaw
S. B. Keene – Vice-General Chairperson (UTU), London
A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal, 12 February 1996
The Dispute and Joint Statement submitted by the parties at the hearing are as follows:
Whether Trainman K.G. Griffin of Moose Jaw is entitled to 4 run-around claims when he was called to Swift Current as a required trainman to switch in the yard and then take train from the yard at Swift Current to Moose Jaw.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Trainman Griffin and his crew were called for 1115 and while performing switching operations in the yard 3 Conductor Only crews were called for 1135, 1140, 1350 and 1400 and departed Swift Current on “fast freights” while he was required to stay and perform switching and then depart with the train that he had been called for.
This is a claim by Trainperson K.G. Griffin of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan for a run-around claim in respect of four run-arounds for a total of 200 miles. The allegation is that the grievor was called in accordance with a practice at Swift Current known as “switch and first” called for 11:15 for a train ordered for 11:35.
The substance of the dispute between the parties, in fact, is whether the grievor was called in accordance with the “switch and first” practice or whether he was called to perform switching in relation to his own train. Clearly in the latter circumstance he would not be entitled to the run-around claim which he makes. The Company’s argument is that the time for which he was called and the time ordered would not suggest that the crew calling personnel would have contemplated him being called for switch and first. While I understand the logic of that position, I have to go on the basis of the best evidence before me. Admittedly the best evidence is less than thorough, but I do have before me a document signed by the grievor whereby he claims that he was called on the basis of “switch and first”. On that basis, with no other evidence to effectively rebut it, I am compelled to conclude that the Council has satisfied the onus which was upon it in this case. In the result the grievance is allowed and that Company is directed to compensate the grievor in accordance with the claim made.
DATED AT Montreal, this 14th day of February 1996
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER