Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, November 14, 1978

Concerning

and

Claim by C. Headrick, continuous miles for deadheading and piloting the CNR Auxiliary from Oba to Hearst on January 10th and 11th, 1978.

On January 10TH, 1978, Mr. Headrick was called S.A.P. to fill an emergency assignment to pilot a CNR Auxiliary Train over a portion of Algoma Central Railway, from Oba, Ontario to Hearst, Ontario.

Mr. Headrick submitted a claim for payment on the basis of continuous service. The claim was declined and the United Transportation Union Local 8S5 contends the Company is not following an accepted condition, violating Article 110, Paragraph (d) and Article 117 Paragraph (a).

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

V. E. Hupka – Manager Industrial Relations, Sault Ste. Marie

N. L. Mills – Superintendent Transportation, Sault Ste. Marie

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

J. Sandie – General Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie

On January 10, 1978, the grievor, a regularly assigned Brakeman and a qualified Conductor, was on his day off. He booked okay for spare work at 1:00 p.m. that day. He was then called to work as a Conductor/Pilot to handle a CNR auxiliary train from Oba to Hearst.

This assignment required the grievor to deadhead from Hawk Junction to Oba on Train No. 5, to pilot the CN train from Oba to Hearst, and to deadhead from Hearst back to Hawk Junction the following day. The grievor carried out the assignment. He was paid on the basis of Article 9(e) of the collective agreement. That article is as follows:

The Company’s position is that the grievor was called for a specific movement, Oba to Hearst, and that he should be paid deadhead miles Hawk Junction to Oba, running miles Oba to Hearst, terminal time and, in respect of the following day, deadhead miles Hearst to Hawk Junction. It would seem that payment was made on that basis.

The work on which the grievor was engaged was that of piloting. That is dealt with in Article 19 of the collective agreement, as follows:

Paragraphs two and three of that article, which deal with when a pilot may be required, or with the crew to be supplied, are not material to this case. Paragraph one deals with the rate and working conditions applicable and paragraph four requires that free sleeping accommodations be provided. The grievor was entitled to those benefits, and there is no suggestion they were not provided.

The Union contends that the grievor was entitled to continuous miles. It alleges a violation of Articles 110(d) and 117(a) of the collect agreement. Those articles are as follows:

Neither of these articles is relevant to the question of payment for a particular assignment. Either the grievor has been paid correctly in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement, or he has not. If he has not been paid correctly, that is not a "change in working condition" it is simply an incorrect application of the collective agreement, and the remedy for that is not to invoke the provisions for discussion and negotiation set out in Article 117, it is simply to apply the collective agreement correctly. As to Article 110, it provides that local arrangements shall not prevail over collective agreement provisions unless there has been prior approval by the General Chairman and the proper officer. The Company does not rely on any such agreement, but has simply applied what would appear to be the material provisions of the collective agreement.

The Union contends that there has been an understanding that emergency piloting be paid for on a continuous basis. That this may be done is not denied by the Company, whose position is that was not, as far as the grievor was concerned, work of an "emergency" nature, but was simply a specific call which he accepted in his turn as a spare man. In these circumstances the correct payment was made.

The Union also contended that the manning requirements of the collective agreement were not met. Such an allegation was not part of the original claim for wages, and does not affect the grievor’s claim. It raises a number of very different considerations which it would not be proper to attempt to deal with in this case.

For this particular assignment it has not been shown that the collective agreement was not properly applied so far as payment to the grievor is concerned. Accordingly the grievance must be dismissed.