Clause (b) - Final Settlement of Disputes:

A decision rendered under Step 4 of the Grievance Procedure shall be examined in joint conference by the Labour Relations Section of the Personnel & Labour Relations Department at System Headquarters and the General Chairman, prior to appeal to arbitration. The request for joint conference accompanied by the Brotherhood's contention and all relevant information shall be submitted in writing within 60 calendar days from the date decision is rendered at Step 4 of the grievance procedure, otherwise the grievance shall become invalid.

A grievance which is not settled in such joint conference may be referred by either party to the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration for final and binding settlement without stoppage of work. A request for arbitration shall be made within 60 calendar days from the date decision is rendered in writing by the Assistant Vice-President Labour Relations, by filing written notice thereof with the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration and on the same date a copy of such filed notice will be transmitted to the other party to the grievance.

The time limits specified in this Clause (b) may be extended by mutual agreement between the Assistant Vice-President – Labour Relations and the General Chairman.

In accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 22, Clause (b) of the Yardmen's Agreement, Article 5, Rule 77, Clause (b) of the Trainmen's agreement ... the following disputes were examined in joint conference by the Labour Relations Section of the Personnel and Labour Relations Department and the General Chairman at Montreal on December 1st and 2nd. The decision rendered on each of the disputes is as shown below:

Thirty-five claims submitted by yardman ...

On the basis of the information supplied by the Brotherhood to date all of these claims are denied. However, at the joint conference you stated that the Assistant Yardmaster(s) and Yardmaster(s) who allegedly performed piloting were instructed by the Company to 'pilot' the locomotives. You undertook to supply the Company with statements to that effect signed by the Assistant Yardmaster(s) and Yardmaster(s) involved. We agreed that if such signed documents were received the claims would be further reviewed by the Company and this will be done provided the documents are received in this office prior to the expiration of the 60-day time limit for a request for arbitration as set forth in Article 22, the second paragraph of Clause (b) of the Yardmen's Agreement."

I wish to refer to your comment in Item 2 of your letter dealing with the thirty-five claims ...

For clarification of all concerned I wish to explain that I have undertaken to obtain signed documents to the effect that the yardmasters and assistant yardmasters involved had been instructed or requested to accompany the movements referred to by supervisors and to perform what we contend to be piloting of those movements.

I cannot accept the emphasis placed on the word 'pilot' as shown in your comment.

We are at a loss to understand why you object to the emphasis placed on the word 'pilot' in view of the fact that this is the word used by you in submitting the claims to us. Furthermore, you are progressing the claims on the basis that Article 4, Clause (a) of the Yardmen's agreement has been allegedly violated, and the article itself most clearly states 'when pilots are required. ...

You will recall that you undertook to supply. the Company with statements from Yardmasters and Assistant Yardmasters to the effect that they had been instructed by the Company to 'pilot' locomotives. The Company agreed that, provided such statements were received by this office within the 60 days in which a request for arbitration is to be made, we would review the claims further. That 60 days expired on February 4.

Since the promised statements have not been forthcoming, we are returning herewith the time claims connected with the dispute.

Please find enclosed a copy of statement received from Yardmaster J. K. Campbell indicating that he was requested to take the diesel units off of Trains 9 and 10 and 103 from the depot to East Yard and return them to the depot.

Please be advised that I do not concur with you; further to your letter of December 6, 1965, I wrote you in connection with this dispute under date of December 14, 1965. You wrote me in connection with this matter on January 14th and I again wrote you on February 24th, therefore the sixty days have not expired as discussion continued in regard to this matter beyond February 4th.

The position of the Company is that of strict and rigid adherence to the time limits the parties have provided in their grievance procedure. This is commendable. It is in the interest of good industrial relations that grievances be processed as readily as conveniently possible. Obviously this was the intention of the parties when they chose to write into their grievance procedure time limits that did not permit undesirable accumulation of unprocessed grievances.

The Arbitrator is well aware and conscious that the provisions relating to the processing of grievances are deserving of the same respect and observance as apply to the agreement generally and that these obligations are imposed on the parties as well as the Arbitrator. The parties herein provided a time limit for the various steps of their grievance procedure not because they wanted to be technical but because they desired that the agreement be effectively administered.