Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, October 14th, 1969

Concerning

and

Claim that the Company violated Articles 12.15 and 3 when it declined to pay two hours punitive overtime to the following Warehousemen Grade 3 on the following dates:

On January 27, February 7, 20 and 27, 1969, shipments of Freight were checked after 6:00 p.m. by Seniority Group 3 Checkers.

The Brotherhood claims violation of Articles 12.15 and 3 and has requested that the following employees be paid two hours punitive overtime on the following dates:

The Company declined payment of the claims.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

P. A. McDiarmid – Labour Relations Assistant, Montreal

G. James – Assistant Labour Relations Officer, Moncton

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

E. E. Thoms – General Chairman, Freshwater

G. M. Stratton – Local Chairman, Corner Brook,

G. W. Parsons – Local Chairman, Port Aux Basques

W. C. Y. McGregor – International Vice-President, Montreal

The grievors, Warehousemen Grade 3, are members of Seniority Group 2. They generally work in or from an area known as the "express" or "local" shed. This is a one-shift, day operation, and the warehousemen are primarily engaged in the acceptance and delivery of local traffic. They claim that they were entitled to perform certain work which was, on a number of occasions, performed by Checkers, who are members of Seniority Group 3. These employees, known as "wharf" or "stevedore" employees, generally work in the area of the "transit" shed. Theirs is a two-shift operation concerned with the handling of traffic to and from ships.

On the occasions in question, shipments of fish, under carload waybilling, were delivered to the transit shed, over a period of hours from early afternoon until about 7:30 p.m. The boxes of fish were unloaded from the shipper’s truck onto the shed floor by means of a fork lift truck operated without objection, by an employee in Seniority Group 3 (a "transit" employee). No check was made until the final truckload arrived in the evening. Then a Freight Checker (a group 3, transit, employee) on his regular tour of duty in the transit shed counted the number of boxes and receipted the bill of lading.

Article 3 of the collective agreement sets out the groups of employees coming within the different seniority groups "for the purpose of promotion and seniority". This provision is not in itself helpful to the grievors, for it adds nothing to the fact that the grievors, coming within a particular classification, seek to protect work which is appropriate to that classification. There is nothing in article 3 to aid in the determination of what work is appropriate to any particular classification.

Article 12.15, relied on by the union, is as follows:

This provision deals with the assignment of extra work in general, and is of no assistance in determining whether any particular classification should perform any particular work. Indeed in the instant case, the work which has been challenged seems to have been done as part of the regular assignment of the group 3, transit, Checkers.

In order to determine whether work is appropriate to any particular job classification, it is necessary to consider the work in question in the light of an agreed job description, or in the light of the actual practice of the parties. In the instant case, it appears to have been the custom for the group 3, transit, employees to accept and check carload shipments of fish. It may be that work of this sort could properly come within the scope of a Warehouseman’s duties. This is not to say, however, that it does so exclusively. In the instant case, to put the union’s case at its highest, it might be said that this work properly came within the scope of either group. But even if the company might have assigned the work to Warehousemen, this is not to say that they were obliged to do so exclusively, at the expense of the Checkers. I am unable to see that any provision of the collective agreement has been violated in this assignment, and the grievance must accordingly be dismissed.