Heard at Montreal, Wednesday, November 10th, 1982

Concerning

and

Claim of the Union that C. J. Pomerleau – Lancaster, N.B., H. L. Laflamme – Lancaster, N.B., and P. A. Laflamme – Bay Shore, N.B., track employees holding permanently established positions at those locations, be paid for weekend transportation between Saint John, N.B. and their residences in Lac Megantic, Quebec.

The Union contends: That C. J. Pomerleau – Lancaster, N.B., H. L. Laflamme – Lancaster, N.B., and P. A. Laflamme – Bay Shore, N.B., track employees hold permanently established positions at those locations and living in Lac Megantic, Quebec, are entitled to weekend transportation. Section 20.5, Wage Agreement #41. That payment for transportation be from 60 days prior to January 31, 1982, Section 19.4 and onward for each weekend they travelled.

The Company denies the Union’s contention and declined payment of the claims.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

B. A. Demers – Supervisor, Labour Relations, Atlantic Region, Montreal

J. H. Blotsky – Assistant Supervisor, Labour Relations, Atlantic Region, Montreal

I. J. Waddell – Labour Relations Officer, CPR, Montreal

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

H. J. Thiessen – System Federation General Chairman, Ottawa

R. Wyrostok – Federation General Chairman, Edmonton

E. J. Smith – General Chairman, London

L. DiMassimo – General Chairman, Montreal

F. L. Stoppler – Vice-President, Ottawa

Article 20.5 of the Collective Agreement is as follows:

The Letter of Understanding dated March 3, 1970, referred to in Article 20.5, is as follows:

The mileage allowance which would be payable to the grievors pursuant to any entitlement they may have under Article 20 is set out in a subsequent letter of understanding dated September 15, 1981. That letter does not, however, deal with the question of entitlement itself.

It will be apparent that the Union’s contention is a far-reaching one. Any employee whose place of work is not the same as his place of residence would be entitled, if the Union’s interpretation is correct, to free transportation from one to the other every weekend, regardless of the distance involved.

While a literal reading of the Article, taken out of context, would appear to support that view, it is clear from the Letter of Understanding that "practices presently in effect" were to be continued, and that a "fair and practical arrangement" was to be developed which would not place an unreasonable economic burden on the Railway and which would contain suitable restrictions on such items as the frequency of trips and maximum distances. It is clear then that the Agreement does not require free transportation from the place of work to the place of residence every weekend, for every employee. There is, however, no evidence that the sort of agreement contemplated by the Letter of Understanding has ever been made. Failing that, it must be determined what the practices were which were referred to in the Letter of Understanding.

It may be noted that there are certain specific provisions for payment of travel costs. Article 20.4 provides for a payment to laid off employees who are re-engaged within one year, although the payment is limited in respect of area. By Article 20.7, employees moving from one point to another by order of the Railway, or in the exercise of seniority rights, are entitled to free-of-charge transportation of their household effects. Neither of those provisions seems to have any implication for the interpretation of Article 20.5.

The only substantial evidence as to the actual practice of payment is a Company letter (not an Agreement between the parties), issued in 1967. Under the practice there described, the payment was made in respect of employees filling temporary away-from-home vacancies at the Company’s request, Extra Gang employees and B & B forces. Section forces bidding in assignments away from home were not to be reimbursed for transportation. The grievors fall clearly in the latter category.

The grievors, like other employees, had had the advantage of using Company rail passes, to which they were and are entitled under Article 20.1. They used these passes for commuting to their homes on weekends. Those passes were subject to Company regulations, and in any event were useful only where there were available trains. Reduction in train service has reduced the value of the passes, at least for the grievors’ purposes. It was partially in response to the problems thus created for certain employees (although not for those in circumstances like the grievors’) that the 1967 policy was developed. The policy was extended in its geographical application, and by the 1970 Letter of Understanding included the provision of bus transportation. The policy was not, however – from the material before me – one of providing free transportation home each weekend for employees such as the grievors, who had bid on permanent section positions situated some distance from their place of residence.

For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.