Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, July 6th, 1965

Concerning

and

Concerning the use of payments made in respect of handling trains between Windsor Station and Glen Yard – suburban passenger service to make up the monthly guarantee.

On certain assignments in suburban passenger service between Montreal–Vaudreuil–Rigaud, payments to trainmen for handling of drafts between Montreal and Glen Yard are being used by the Company to make up the monthly guarantee of the men.

The Brotherhood contends that the Company is violating the provisions of Article 1, clauses (F) and (G) of the Collective Agreement, under which trainmen handling these drafts must be paid, and that such payments cannot be used to make up a short day or monthly guarantee.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

F. G. Firmin – Supervisor, Personnel & Labour Relations, Montreal

There appeared on behalf of the Brotherhood:

J. I. Harris – General Chairman, Montreal

G. C. Gale – Vice-President, Winnipeg

The following are reasons for judgement delivered on July 10th, 1965, by Mr. J. A. Hanrahan, Arbitrator, following a hearing held before him in Montreal, Quebec, on July 6th, 1965, under the authority conferred by the terms of an agreement between the parties dated January 7th, 1965:

This problem arises from the Company’s contention, as presented by Mr. Firmin, that the work of handling drafts (empty cars) between Windsor Station, Montreal, and Glen Yard is work incidental to the service of trainmen in such an assignment and therefore the time so paid should be used to the extent necessary to make up the monthly guarantee as called for in Article 3 (a) of the collective agreement.

Article 3 (a) of the agreement provides:

For the Brotherhood, Mr. Harris stated there was no quarrel with the Company’s position with respect to actual overtime or pay for work incidental to a regular assignment being used to make up the monthly guarantee. However, he did not agree that the handling of drafts is work that can be considered incidental to an assignment when that service is paid for on an entirely different basis. He further reasoned that although payment for handling drafts as described in Article 1(f) as an "overtime rate", this is a misnomer, because it has no relation to regular overtime described in Article 2(a). In other words, this is not the kind of "overtime" contemplated by Article 3(a).

The distinction between the "overtime rate", as it is called, that is paid trainmen for handling drafts and that of regular overtime is to be found first in Article 1(f):

Regular overtime is provided for in Article 2 (a):

A study of these provisions leads to the conclusion that the handling of drafts by trainmen, when such work is performed during their regular hours of assignment, does not come within "overtime" as described in Article 2(a). This being a special provision concerning work performed after eight hours, it has no application to the term "overtime rate" used in Article 1 (f).

However, that finding does not exclude application of the words in that provision "… and pay for work incidental to the service of their own assignment" in computing the monthly guarantee. It was conceded these trainmen are regularly required to handle drafts. The fact that their representatives deemed it necessary to negotiate a premium rate of pay for them "when required to handle drafts," as found in Article 1 (f), indicates a recognition that such work is "incidental to the service of their own assignment". Lacking a negotiated definition, the word "incidental" should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, namely "liable to happen".

For these reasons this claim must be disallowed.