Heard at Montreal, Wednesday, October 10th, 1973

Concerning

and

Claim by the Union that the Company violated Article 8 of the Job Security Agreement: Technological, Operational, Organizational Changes, when it did not supply the required notice.

Due to the abolishment of Terminal Passenger Supervisor, a position excluded from the terms of the agreement, the position of Relief Depot Supervisor Cashier and Head Checker, incumbent Mr. C.L. Masters, was abolished (job description attached), with subsequent displacement.

The Union contend that the change adversely effected Van Straten, Gowdridge and Newsome, employees covered by the collective agreement. Van Straten and Gowdridge incumbency rates Section 9 of Article 8, Newsome two months’ notice of lay-off.

The Company contend the change does not come within the scope of Article 8.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

E. G. Abbot – Assistant Manager Labour Relations, Montreal

P. E. Timpson – Assistant Supervisor Labour Relations, Vancouver

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

R. Welch – General Chairman, Vancouver

T. J. Kairns – Vice-General Chairman, Secretary/Treasurer, Montreal

The position of Terminal Passenger Supervisor at the Vancouver Baggage Room was abolished effective November 25, 1972. While this was a non-scheduled position, and its abolition could not in itself be a ground of complaint under this collective agreement, it was accompanied by the abolition of a position which did come within the unit, namely, relieving Terminal Passenger Supervisor. The incumbent of this position exercised his seniority, displacing the Cashier, Baggage Room, and the incumbent of the latter position exercised his seniority to become Cashier, Ticket Office. When this occurred, some three persons then working in the ticket office were affected, and reverted to other jobs. The Union alleges that in the circumstances there was an organizational change of a permanent nature which called for the application of Article VIII of the Job Security agreement.

The material provisions of Article VIII of the Job Security agreement are as follows:

The Company stated that there was an organizational change at Vancouver on January 1, 1973, when the Ticket Office and the Dining Car/Linen Storeroom offices ceased to report to the Superintendent, Vancouver Division and became the responsibility of the Superintendent, Passenger Services. This change, however, does not account for the change in question here, namely, the abolition of position of Relieving Terminal Passenger Supervisor. The employee concerned worked thereafter as Cashier, Baggage Room and the relief work which he had performed ceased to be available or (in the case of certain other relief work he had performed) was absorbed into the work of existing classifications.

It was the Company’s view that, if the change in question be considered an organizational change, it was not a change of the sort contemplated by Article VIII, because it was brought about by fluctuation of traffic, and thus not to be considered, by virtue of Article VIII (7), set out above. It is clear from the material before me that passenger traffic being handled by "The Canadian" at Vancouver has significantly declined in recent years, and the volume of such traffic would relate to the Company’s staffing requirements in this area.

The Company referred particularly to CROA Case No. 228, where it was held that the cancellation of two trains was simply a reduction in the level of operations due to fluctuation of traffic. A number of cases have been decided since that time which might make the application of Case No. 228 questionable. Cases 288 and 331 also involved the cancellation of trains, and there the grievances were allowed. While "fluctuations" include general declines in traffic or business (Case No. 272), practically every operational change could be attributed to "fluctuations of traffic" (Case No. 286), and care must be taken not to apply subsection (7) of Article VIII in such a way as to destroy the overall effect of the article.

In some of the cases in which Article VIII (or an analogous provision in the case of other agreements) has been held to apply, a distinction has been drawn between a reduction in level of operations (in which case the article might not apply), and the elimination of a type of service (and in such cases the article has been held to apply: (Cases No. 286 and 271). In the instant case, it is clear that the change which occurred must be described as of the former type. The same service is performed, but on a reduced scale, an without the same supervision.

Of the previous cases, those most closely analogous are Cases 3 and 284. Of course the circumstances of those cases were different, but essentially they involved reductions in staff due to insufficient work load, and the distribution of the existing work among a smaller group of employees. In the instant case the abolition of the position of Relieving Terminal Passenger Supervisor was caused by fluctuation of traffic, and resulted in what must be described as a normal reassignment of duties.

For the foregoing reasons, it is my view that this was not a situation to which the provisions of Article VIII applied. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.