Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, January 11th, 1972

Concerning

and

Consist of Yard Crews at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

Inability of the United Transportation Union to agree with the Company that adequate safety can be maintained with a reduced consist of one Yard Foreman and one Yard Helper for crews working at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

There appeared on behalf of the Company.

A. J. DelTorto – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

M. A. Matheson – Labour Relations Assistant, Montreal

N. R. Smith – Service Design Officer, Montreal

D. E. Christensen – System Transportation Officer, Montreal

J. B. Pool – General Yard Master, PrinceAlbert

And on behalf of the Union:

H. R. Burnett – General Chairman, Winnipeg

R. Murdoch – Secretary, General Committee, Winnipeg

The Company seeks to reduce the size of yard crews working at Prince Albert from a crew of one Yard Foreman and two Yard Helpers to a crew of one Yard Foreman and one Yard Helper. The collective agreement provides for the Company to give notice to the Union of its request for such a reduction, and, where the parties cannot agree, for arbitration by the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration, the issue being limited to whether or not adequate safety can be maintained with the proposed crew consist reduction.

The agreement requires that, after the completion of a survey, if the parties do not agree that adequate safety can be maintained with the proposed crew consist reduction, the Union is to give specific reasons in writing why, in their opinion, adequate safety cannot be maintained. The matter is then to be determined having regard to these specific moves as well as certain general considerations which may affect the matter. In the instant case the Union relies on the following reasons why, in its opinion, adequate safety could not be maintained:

Of these, only the sixth is, in my view, a specific reason of the sort required by the collective agreement. The collective agreement calls for a survey of the area and work, and for the identification of particular situations to which the parties and the arbitrator may address themselves. With the exception noted, the Company was thus unable to deal with specific situations as to which the parties differed. It did, however, describe certain situations where, in its opinion, operations could be carried out with adequate safety provided certain changes in switching methods were introduced, or limitations imposed on the number of cars handled. I am satisfied on the material before me that in these situations the work can be carried out with maintenance of adequate safety by a two-man crew.

The Company also addressed itself to the issues raised by the Union although these were, with the exception noted, of a general nature. They were correspondingly dealt with in a general way, although particular examples were referred to in some instances. The first ground of objection clearly calls for identification of specific locations. Although, in its presentation the Union referred to "extreme curvatures" of track to be found in many areas of the yard, there was no analysis of specific situations, and no answer to the changes in switching methods proposed. As to the second ground, protection of road crossings is required in some cases, but such protection itself does not require a three-man crew. The Union did not refer to situations where, arguably, the crew would be involved with certain switching which required the adoption of positions which would not permit crossing protection. As to the third ground, while there may be locations where steps must be taken to protect workmen and vehicle movement, it is incumbent on the Union to show why, in any such location, three men rather than two are required to take these steps. This simply was not done. By contrast, reference may be made to Case No. 314, where this consideration was given effect in the particular circumstances there described. As to the fourth ground, this again obviously requires specification of instances. Wbether or not, if it is necessary for a crew member to be stationed on the side opposite the engineman, two other persons are necessary to pass signals to the engineman is a question which can only be decided on the facts of the particular case. It is obviously quite possible that in many cases one person would be sufficient to relay signals. The fifth ground must be answered in the same way. Close clearances do cause difficulties, but whether they are insurmountable or not by a two-man crew depends on the circumstances. As to the sixth ground, it is no doubt the case that special precautions must be taken in handling cars of chemicals. Inspection of such cars should perhaps be carried out only while another crew member is nearby. However this may be, this does not affect the movement of the car or the maintenance of sight lines.

The last ground of objection was relied on particularly by the Union. The matter has been referred to in a number of awards, and raises the question of the effect which the proposed reduction in crew size might have on productivity. It may be that in many cases, productivity would be somewhat reduced, although it was stated by the Company that in its experience, such reduction was slight. Both parties referred to certain remarks made in the Symington Yard case, an earlier award between the same parties. There the following was said:

In the instant case, it was alleged by the Union that Company officials were in some cases harassing the members of reduced crews, and requiring them to perform as much work as had been done prior to reduction in crew size. In particular, it was said, employees are improperly required to carry out moves in an unsafe way, and disciplined for failure to do so.

These are serious allegations, and could well relate to issues which might come, in a proper case, before the Office of Arbitration. They do not, however, affect the question which is before me, namely, whether certain moves can be carried out by a two-man crew with maintenance of adequate safety. If the Company subsequently requires a two-man crew to carry out unsafe moves, that is obviously a different matter. Reference was made to the case of one employee who, it was said, was disciplined for failure to carry out an unsafe procedure. It is possible that the employee was improperly disciplined; whether that is so or not is a separate matter, and is of course not before me now.

Reference may also be made to remarks made in Case No. 266, as follows:

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is my view that crews working at Prince Albert may be reduced to a consist of one Yard Foreman and one Yard Helper with maintenance of adequate safety. It is accordingly my award that the request of the Company be granted.