Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, April 14, 1981

Concerning

and

The Brotherhood claims that the Company violated Article 4.1 of Agreement 5.26 in not employing a Purser on the M.V. "Ambrose Shea" while in lay-up between September 1st and 14, 1980.

The Brotherhood submitted a claim on behalf of Mr. David Billard, for payment of wages he would have received had he been called upon to perform the work done on the M.V. "Ambrose Shea" between September 1st and 14, 1980, of a nature normally performed by a Purser. The Company declined payment of the claim stating that there was not sufficient work required to necessitate the employment of a Purser during this period.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

N. B. Price – Manager, Labour Relations, Moncton

W. J. Nearing – Senior Labour Relations Assistant, Moncton

Captain J. Prim – Master, M.V. "Ambrose Shea", St. John’s

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

W. C. Vance – Regional Vice-President, Moncton

H. Reddick – Local Chairman, St. John’s

Article 4.1 of the Collective Agreement is as follows:

It is the Union’s contention, in effect, that there was a vacancy in the position of Purser at the material times.

For the period in question, the vessel was in lay-up status. The crew was reduced from the normal operating crew of 84 (including a Purser and probably an Assistant Purser) to a crew of 8, with no Purser. Whether or not a Purser had been included in lay-up crews in the past, none was included on this occasion, and the question is whether or not the Company was obliged to have one, if any Purser duties were performed.

Of course, the vast majority of a Purser’s duties (which involve dealing with the public, arrangements involving disposition of facilities of a vessel in service and administration duties relating to a large crew), did not need to be performed during the lay-up. It is nevertheless the case that certain Purser duties were performed. In this case, they were performed by the Master. These duties included, most importantly, the preparation of time reports as well as the reporting of crew lists and perhaps some other minor administrative matters. Such work, in connection with a crew of 8, took but a small portion of the Master’s time.

It does not appear that there was anything improper in the Master’s performing these duties to the extent that he did. I was not referred to any provision of the Collective Agreement which would prevent the performance of "bargaining unit work" by someone not a member of the bargaining unit. There being no violation of any express provision of the Collective Agreement, the only question which might be thought to arise would be whether or not the Master in fact performed Purser duties to the extent that he in fact became a Purser and so ought to be considered a member of the bargaining unit. See, in this connection, the Fittings Ltd. case, 20 L.A.C. 245. In such a case it would have to be said that there had been a vacancy. In the instant case, however, such a conclusion is not possible on the facts. The Master did a slight amount of Purser’s work, but not to the extent that his whole job, for the period in question, could properly be characterized as that of Purser.

The Company made arrangements for the performance of a small amount of the work which a Purser would normally do, by someone else. Those arrangements were not contrary to the Collective Agreement. It did not require Purser’s work to be performed to the extent that there was "a job of work to be done" in that classification. There was, therefore, no vacancy, so Article 4.1 of the Collective Agreement did not need to be applied.

For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.