Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, May 13th, 1969

Concerning

and

Deduction of 27 miles from pay claim of Engineer E.P. Hughes, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for service performed June 24th, 1968.

On June 24th, 1968, Engineer E.P. Hughes worked in turn around service between Sutherland and Cheviot on the Sutherland Subdivision. He also performed service on a spur line claiming 27 miles for this service under Article 14 of the Collective Agreement. This 27 miles was deducted by the Company. The Brotherhood contends that the claim was in order and requested restoration of the miles deducted. The Company declined this request.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

P. A. Maltby – Supervisor Labour Relations, Winnipeg

C. F. Parkinson – Labour Relations Assistant, Montreal

J. B. Chabot – Labour Relations Assistant, Montreal

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

M. H. Tetlock – General Chairman, Winnipeg

E. C. Machin – General Chairman, Montreal

The facts are not in dispute. On June 24, 1968, Engineer Hughes operated in short turn-around service on the Sutherland Subdivision. His trip was from Sutherland to Cheviot and return, a total distance on the main line of 21 miles. During the course of this trip it was necessary to run off the main line at Cheviot, on the Potasco Spur, to service an industry located on the spur at a distance of four miles from the main line. He spent two hours and ten minutes on the industrial spur, and this time was equivalent to 27 miles. His total time on duty was four hours and forty-five minutes.

The material provisions of the collective agreement are as follows:

Engineer Hughes claimed payment for 12 1/2 miles in respect of the day, calculated as follows:

The company has disallowed that part of the claim for "running off main line". It is agreed that Engineer Hughes is entitled to be paid for preparatory time and initial terminal time pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2(d). The company contends, however, that the mileage calculated for "running off main line" may be considered together with the regular mileage run in determining whether the minimum day payment is to be made.

The union argues that by Article 14, payment for mileage off the main line, (such as the 27 miles allowed for the grievor’s time on the Potasco Spur) is to be added to any other payment an employee may receive. In my view the language of Article 14 and the other material portions of the agreement does not support this argument. Article 14 quite plainly provides that mileage run off the main line (and in the instant case there was the equivalent of 27 miles run off the main line) is to be added to the mileage of the trip. In the instant case the mileage of the trip was 21 miles. The total mileage to be paid, then, was 48 miles. Since payment is to be made for a minimum of 100 miles, the grievor was entitled to be paid for 100 miles on this occasion, and he was in fact so paid.

Article 14, it may be noted, provides that the miles made when the engine is run off the main line "will be added to mileage of trip". This may be contrasted with the provision in the second paragraph of Article 2(d), by which payment for terminal time is "in addition to the guaranteed mileage". The guaranteed mileage is 100 miles, and the payment for terminal time is in addition to that. The "mileage of trip", however, was only 21 miles, and by Article 14, that is the amount to which the mileage off the main line is to be added. It may be noted as well that Article 2(e) contemplates that a minimum day’s payment is to be paid having regard to the actual mileage of "the entire trip" where more than one class of road service is to be performed.

A similar issue arose in Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration Case No. 9. There the company had counted the time of trainmen held for work train service in making up the minimum day. The provision for payment for such time did not indicate that the payment was to be in addition to the minimum, and it was held that the collective agreement did not support the union’s claim. That decision, in my respectful opinion, was correct. There is nothing to support a contradictory decision in the instant case.

In my view the mileage allowed for running off the main line is to be added to the trip mileage and the proper payment made for the total. The company has done that in the instant case. Accordingly, the grievance must be dismissed.