AH – 406

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

CP EXPRESS & TRANSPORT

(the “Company”)

AND

TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION

(the “Union”)

GRIEVANCE RE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR USE OF AUTOMOBILE

SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

Brian F. Weinert – Manager, Labour Relations

And on behalf of the Union:

John Bechtel – Vice General Chairman

John Crabb – Vice General Chairman

A hearing in this matter was held in Toronto on February 13, 1989.

AWARD

DISPUTE:

The requirement by the Company to have employee Jim Mallard of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, to report to work at different locations without the benefit of reimbursement for the use of his automobile.

JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:

Employee Jim Mallard is required to report to work in different areas of the city with no remuneration by the Company for the use of his automobile.

The Union maintains he should be receiving compensation, due to the fact his home terminal is designated and all bulletins are recognized and described in that fashion.

The Company denied the Union’s request.

The material establishes that Mr. Mallard was hired to work at the Dartmouth, N.S. Terminal on an “on call” basis and was not assigned to specific bulletined position. He has been telephoned at home on occasion and told to report to work at other terminals in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. The grievor maintains that in such circumstances he is entitled to payment for travel time to the other terminals, as well as mileage for the use of his own vehicle in getting to his place of work.

It is not disputed that the past practice of the Company has been restricted to the payment of travel time and mileage or actual transportation costs in the case where an employee who is at work in a given terminal is, during the course of his working day, assigned to work at another terminal for part of that same day. In the instant case, however, there appears to be no prior practice of paying either mileage or travel time in the case of an unassigned employee who is required to attend at another terminal from the outset of the working day.

The only reference to the payment of mileage referred to the arbitrator appears in article 26.4 of the collective agreement which is as follows:

26.4 Effective August 1, 1985, where automobile mileage allowance is paid such allowance shall be $.34 per mile ($.21 per kilometre).

The Union has directed the Arbitrator to no provision in the collective agreement which requires the payment of mileage or travel time in respect of an unassigned employee who is directed to attend at work at a terminal other than the terminal where the employee was originally hired. On the facts, the Arbitrator is satisfied that the employee travelling to the work location in those circumstances is no different than the employee who drives a vehicle to work prior to the commencement of a shift at the Dartmouth Terminal. In that case, mileage and travel allowance is not paid, and I can see no compelling reason why it should be in the case of the grievor. Moreover, given that there is no language in the collective agreement to support the claim, the grievance must be dismissed.

DATED at Toronto this 22nd day of February, 1989.

(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER

ARBITRATOR