AH – 375
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LIMITED
OF RAILWAY OPERATING UNIONS
(BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS)
GRIEVANCE RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIM FOR EQUALIZATION OF MILES
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:
R. S. McKenna – General Chairman (BLE), Barrie
D. C. Curtis – General Chairman (BLE), Calgary
L. O. Schillaci – General Chairperson (UTU), 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
V. H. Hamilton – Secretary (UTU), Lumbarby
A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal, 12 February 1996
The Dispute and Statement of Issue submitted by the parties at the hearing are as follows:
Timeliness of claim for equalization of miles between the Montreal Divisions and Division 381, Smith Falls, Ontario under Article 3(d)(1) of the collective agreement.
COMPANY’S STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
In 1988 the Company began to operate trains through St. Luc Yard destined for Hochelaga Yard by Winchester Pool crews from Smith Falls, Ontario.
In 1995, the Council initiated a grievance into this matter. The Company has declined the matter as untimely and inarbitrable, as it was not properly progressed through the grievance procedure.
Based on the persuasive submissions received from the Company in this matter, the Arbitrator is of the view that this is an untimely grievance. The dispute concern a claim for equalization of miles between Montreal Division and Division 381, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is clear this matter arose a substantial number of years ago. While the Arbitrator understands that some delay occurred by reason of differences among the Brotherhood’s own officers as to the merit of this issue, the fact remains that the collective agreement provides for a mandatory time limit of sixty days, as provided in article 18. The passage of seven years is clearly outside the purview of the time limits there contemplated and in the circumstances I must find this matter to not be arbitrable by reason of a failure of the time limits.
Signed at Montreal, this 14th day of February 1996
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER