IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM COUNCIL NO. 11
RE: GRIEVANCE OF BRUCE PELTO
Sole Arbitrator: Michel G. Picher
Appearing For The
Steubing – Counsel,
Luc Couture – International Representative, Hawkesbury
Appearing For The Company:
Moran – Labour Relations Officer,
Lockerby – Labour Relations Officer,
Mullally – Manager, S&C Construction,
Stephanie Stone – Industrial Relations Intern (FMCS), Calgary
A hearing in this matter was
decision dated February 15, 2007, the Arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding
that the Company improperly failed to provide an Article 1.1(a) Notice under
the Income Security Agreement (ISA) with respect to the abolishment of the
position of S&C Maintainer B. Pelto at
The impact of the Company’s actions, found by the Arbitrator to constitute an operational change, is related in some detail in the award of February 15, 2007, and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that two employees who were on the receiving end of the displacement chain did suffer either a real or a potential loss of earnings. Those employees are Mr. Dave Desjardins and Mr. Steve Beaudry.
submits that there is no basis no compensate the two employees as argued by the
The Company’s representatives note to the Arbitrator’s attention that none of the employees affected by the notice failed to comply with the provisions to article 4 of the Income Security Agreement, as they did fully exhaust their seniority in their own bargaining unit on the Basic Seniority Territory. There was, in that circumstance, no right to invoke the severance options otherwise available under article 4. In the result, the protection of the employees affected would be the maintenance of basic rates under the terms of article 7 of the ISA.
Having considered the respective positions of the parties, the Arbitrator is compelled to accept the argument of the Company in the case at hand. It is, at best, speculative to consider whether there would or would not have been a severance buy out negotiated if Mr. Pelto had been included in the article 1.1(a) notice which issued in May of 2000. Mr. Pelto, or another senior employee, may or may not have had the necessary eligibility or, alternatively, may simply not have wished to sever their employment at that time. On what basis can it now be determined that there would have been no ripple effect, in any event? I can see none which can be reliably used to ground a considerable award for what would be earnings replacement.
must agree with the Company that what the ISA contemplates is rate protection
for employees who are negatively impacted by a technological, operational or
organizational change. That rate protection is implemented through the accrediting
of an MBR formula for the benefit of each of the employees, so as to maintain
them at their then current wage rates. I must agree with the Company’s
representative that overtime and overtime opportunities have no bearing in that
calculation. To allow the remedy which the
For the foregoing reasons the Arbitrator finds and declares that the position of the Company is correct. The Arbitrator directs that the Company apply, retroactively, to Mr. Desjardins and to Mr. Beaudry the protections of the maintenance of their basic rates in accordance with the ISA, and pay to them forthwith any amounts which might accordingly be owing. I continue to retain jurisdiction in the event of any further dispute concerning the interpretation or implementation of this award.
MICHEL G. PICHER