Heard at Montreal, Wednesday, July 7th, 1965

Concerning

and

Concerning the use of payments made in respect of work train service enroute to make up a minimum day.

Work performed by train crews under the provision of Article 20, Clause (i) of the collective agreement with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, is being used by the Company to make up a minimum day.

The Brotherhood contends that the provision of Article 20, Clause (i) in the collective agreement is being violated, inasmuch as this constitutes a special allowance to trainmen when held for work train service enroute in excess of one hour, and that time so made cannot be used to make up a minimum day.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

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

G. DeVale – Assistant Superintendent, Laurentian Division, 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 7th, 1965, under the authority conferred by the terms of an agreement between the parties dated January 7th, 1965:

This problem concerns the Company’s action in using the time of trainmen held for work train service enroute to make up a minimum day.

Mr. Harris argued this violated the provisions of Article 20, Clause (i) of the collective agreement, that reads:

It was the claim of the Brotherhood that time so occupied had resulted in a negotiated premium that should be paid over and above the basic day’s wages. The time aspect being basic to the roadmen’s system of pay, the Brotherhood had worked to provide against extra work enroute interfering with getting over the road as quickly as possible. If such an interruption occurred, it should be compensated for on the basis of an earned additional benefit, Mr. Harris reasoned.

Mr. Harris pointed to the exception contained in this provision preventing it being utilized in computing overtime. This he reasoned strengthened his view that it was intended to be an arbitrary or special allowance.

Mr. Firmin’s basic argument was that there is nothing in the collective agreement supporting the Brotherhood’s theory that such payments cannot be used to make up a minimum day when required.

Mr. Firmin offered examples of how the Company viewed the proper application of the existing provisions to govern compensation in such circumstances:

Mr. Firmin referred the Arbitrator to a decision of His Honour, Judge Lippo, in a matter concerning the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen on the Prairie and Pacific Regions, under date of November 30, 1964. While Mr. Firmin stated that with the exception of the inclusion of the words "or wreck train" in Article 20, Clause (i) of the Trainmen’s agreement, the two rules are identical. Mr. Harris argued the whole wage structure of the Pacific Division for firemen and enginemen differed so completely from that of the Trainmen in the Eastern Division that this judgement would be valueless.

In the matter before Judge Lippe the crew involved while enroute was required to work 2 hours and 15 minutes in unloading steel. When a claim was submitted for 100 miles, plus 28 miles, which meant 61 road miles actually run and 39 not run, the claim was reduced to 100 miles minimum basic pay, plus 9 miles for initial terminal time. It was the Company’s contention that use of the 28 miles in work train service enroute to make up a short day is consistent with the provision quoted. The same contention was there made by the Brotherhood, namely, that the provision constituted a special allowance when required for work train service enroute in excess of one hour and that time could not be used to make up a minimum day.

Confining his findings to an interpretation of the section quoted, without reference to any other benefit accruing to those in the Pacific Division, His Honour stated:

That claim was disallowed.

In the view of this Arbitrator, it would require words not appearing in Article 20, Clause (i) to sustain this claim. To give effect to the Brotherhood’s reasoning the Clause would have to contain a qualifying provision such as "Time so paid shall not be used to make up a minimum day". That intention does not appear even by inference.

There is an existing benefit in the language used, as indicated by the example given by Mr. Firmin, namely, that in the event the actual miles run amount to 100, there can be added any time used in work train service enroute. In its present form that is the extent of the benefit negotiated in Article 20, Clause (i).

For these reasons this claim is disallowed.