Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, March 8, 1977

Concerning

and

The Union contend that Mr. T.M. Marshall, a senior applicant, should be awarded the position of Senior Clerk – Balance Sheet.

Mr. Marshall applied for the position of Senior Clerk – Balance Sheet Section, a position covered by article 5 of the Collective Agreement.

The position was awarded to Mr. T.P. Van Raes, a junior employee.

This dispute has been processed through the grievance procedure.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

G. M. Booth – Personnel Officer, Finance & Accounting, Montreal

R. A. Marks – Assistant Manager Disbursement Accounting, Montreal

D. Cardi – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

R. Welch – System General Chairman, Vancouver

R. C. Smith – National Vice President, Montreal

Article 24.1 of the collective agreement is as follows:

Under this provision it may be that the grievor, as senior applicant, would have been entitled to the job in question. There is no doubt that he was qualified for it in most respects, although it is the Company’s position that his lack of experience in balance sheet work was of sufficient importance that it could not in any event be said that the grievor had sufficient ability and merit for the job. It would seem that it was only with respect to this one type of experience that the grievor’s qualifications were insufficient. Even if it be assumed that the grievor did have sufficient ability and merit for the job, however, and while he would then be entitled to it by virtue of his seniority if article 24.1 applied, the fact is that appointment to the job of Senior Clerk is governed by article 5 of the collective agreement, not by article 24. Article 5.1 is as follows:

The job in question is one of those listed in article 5.3. In such a case, even assuming that the grievor could be considered qualified his greater seniority is only a "considering factor" and would not entitle him to the job. The Company expressly has a "right of appointment" and while its judgment is subject to appeal, the matter is clearly different from one arising under article 24.1, where a senior qualified employee is entitled to appointment. Under a clause such as article 5, it is my view that for an arbitrator to set aside the Company’s decision it would have to be shown that the Company acted unfairly, or according to a wrong principle. That has not been shown here. Whatever weight is to be given to the grievor’s lack of balance sheet experience there is no doubt that it is an important aspect of the work and it was not improper of the Company to have regard to it.

On the material before me it has not been shown that the Company exercised its right of appointment improperly. There has been no violation of the collective agreement, and the grievance must accordingly be dismissed.