Heard at Montreal, Wednesday, June 14, 1983

Concerning

and

Claim for difference in pay between passenger brakeman and passenger conductor in favour of Trainman D. G. Claridge on 28 January, 1983.

On 28 January, 1983 D. G. Claridge was employed as a passenger trainman on VIA Trains No. 74 and No. 81 operating between Windsor and Toronto, Ontario.

The consist of both trains was 4 day coaches and 1 Café-Bar Lounge car.

The Union contends that both trains had five working coaches under article 11.1 and Trainman Claridge should have been used as Assistant Conductor under article 11.3 (b), Agreement 4.16.

The Company declined the grievance stating that the Café-Bar Lounge car was not a working coach.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

H. J. Koberinski – Manager Labour Relations, Montreal

G. C. Blundell – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

D. P. Carmichael – Assistant General Manager – OBS, VIA Rail, Montreal

J. A. Sebesta – Coordinator Special Projects Transportation, Montreal

And on behalf of the Union:

R. A. Bennett – General Chairman, Toronto

T. G. Hodges – Secretary, General Committee, Toronto

R. J. Proulx – General Chairman, Quebec

R. T. O'Brien – Vice-President, Ottawa

Article 11.1 sets out the crew consists required in passenger service. By article 11.1 (c), where there are four working coaches or less, the crew is to consist of one Conductor and one Brakeman. By article 11.1 (e), where there are five or more working coaches, there is to be one Conductor, one Assistant Conductor and one Brakeman. On the runs in question, there was one Conductor and one Brakeman (the grievor). The grievor claims that there were five working coaches on those runs, and that he ought to have been paid as an Assistant Conductor.

The four day coaches were "working coaches", and no question arises as to that. The question is whether or not the café-bar lounge car was a working coach within the meaning of article 11. In this regard, paragraph (a) of the Note to article 11.1 is significant. It is as follows:

Regard may also be had to paragraph (c) of the Note, and to article 11.3:

While a café-bar lounge car is not the same as a café-coach lounge car, it may be that it could perform the function referred to in paragraph (a) of the Note. What is important in that provision is not so much the designation of the equipment as the Conductor's responsibility for the collection of transportation. In the instant case, the Conductor did in fact collect transportation from certain passengers while they were in the café-bar lounge car. The transportation collected, however, was for the passengers' day coach accommodation. The café-bar lounge car (unlike the cars listed in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of paragraph (a) of the Note, it would seem), does not include space for which a transportation charge is normally levied. What occurred in this case was simply that the Conductor had to go there to find his coach passengers, to collect the coach transportation. While moving through an extra car would increase the extent of the Conductor's work somewhat, all the fares collected were in respect of transportation on the coaches, of which there were not more than four.

Accordingly, it must be concluded that on the trains in question there were not more than four "working coaches" within the meaning of article 11, and that an Assistant Conductor was not required. The grievance must therefore be dismissed.