AH – 416
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CP EXPRESS & TRANSPORT
TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION
GRIEVANCE RE C. BROWN
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 Crabb – Vice General Chairman
A hearing in this matter was held at Toronto on December 12, 1988.
The following joint statement of issue was filed:
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On February 1, 2, 4, 10, 15, 17, 24 and 29, 1988, employee C. Brown reported for work to perform the linehaul operation between North Bay/Toronto/North Bay. Upon arrival in Toronto, employee C. Brown was delayed 1/2 hour waiting for W/B and claimed same on trip sheet. The Company proceeded to deduct the 1/2 hour on the days in question.
The Union maintains the employee is entitled to the 1/2 hour and requested the Company reimburse employee C. Brown 1/2 hour for days claimed.
The Company denied the claims, stating they are relying on the Code, which allows them to dictate the times employees are allowed to go for lunch.
The material establishes that linehaul drivers are entitled to waiting time under the terms of the collective agreement. While article 12 of the collective agreement allows the Company to force certain employees to take a lunch period between the hours there stipulated, mileage-rated highway vehiclemen are expressly excluded from that provision by the terms of article 33.24.12 of the collective agreement. It appears undisputed that traditionally they are left to be the best judge of when it is appropriate for them to take a lunch break, since that often depends on their irregular hours of work and the nature of their specific assignments. There is nothing in the collective agreement that entitles the Company to have required Mr. Brown to take lunch during the half hour waiting period which he experienced at the Toronto terminal on the dates specified.
On the facts it appears undisputed that the grievor was detained for reasons beyond his control for a period of a half hour. In the circumstances he is entitled to be paid for that time, which the Company was not entitled to treat as an unpaid lunch period. For these reasons the grievance is allowed, and the grievor shall be compensated on the basis of one half hour of wages for each of the days in question. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 16th day of December, 1988.
(signed) MICHEL G. PICHER