AH – 379
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LIMITED
OF RAILWAY OPERATING UNIONS
(UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION)
GRIEVANCE RE MATERIAL CHANGE – TRAIN 481
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
H. B. Butterworth – Labour Relations Officer, Toronto
M. G. DeGirolamo – Director, Labour Relations, Montreal
R. E. Wilson – Manager, Labour Relations, Toronto
G. Chehowy – Manager, Labour Relations, Montreal
M. E. Keiran – Manager, Labour Relations, Vancouver
L. J. Guenther – Labour Relations Officer, Vancouver
R. M. Smith – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal
And on behalf of the Union:
R. S. McKenna – General Chairman (BLE), Barrie
D. C. Curtis – General Chairman (BLE), Calgary
D. A. Warren – General Chairperson (UTU), Toronto
L. O. Schillaci – General Chairperson (UTU), Calgary
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 Joint Statement of Issue submitted by the parties at the hearing are as follows:
To negotiate with the Brotherhood measures to minimize significantly adverse effects on the proposed change of rerouting train 481 on the locomotive engineers at North Bay, Ontario, under article 32, Material Change in Working Conditions.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Company’s decision to reroute trains 481 VIA, Toronto. The Council filed a grievance alleging a violation of article 32 which they contend required the Company to provide notice of a material change to the General Chairman and to negotiate benefits to minimize the significantly adverse effects on Locomotive Engineers.
The Company contends that the change at issue is not a material change in working conditions.
This is a grievance in respect of the re-routing of Train 481. The claim of the Brotherhood is that the Company implemented a material change by re-routing Train 481, and that in that circumstance notice should have been given under article 32 of the collective agreement governing material changes in working conditions.
The evidence before the Arbitrator suggests that the initiative of the Company was prompted by its realization that the volume of traffic being carried from Montreal on Train 481 was not sufficient to justify the operation of that train. This was particularly so given that the movement of Train 929 from the Montreal Wharf to the same destination provided a more efficient means of carrying such traffic as would otherwise have been carried by Train 481.
Great care should be taken in issuing any arbitrated result in respect of the definition of a material change under the terms of article 32 of the collective agreement. I therefore do not propose to say more than is necessary for the instant case. Clearly, however, what the gist of the instant case reveals is that there was a reduction in the volumes to be carried on Train 481 which motivated the original adjustment by the Company. Although it may be that that original decision was thought to be permanent at the time, and was subsequently reversed by reason on an increase in traffic, in the result there is revealed here what must be characterised as a fluctuation in traffic, and the kind of reassignment or work adjustment which is traditional, normal and inherent in the nature of railroading. In the result, therefore, this grievance is dismissed.
Signed at Montreal, this 14th day of February 1996
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER