Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, July 5, 1983

Concerning

and

Contracting out of the renovations at the CN Station at North Battleford, Saskatchewan.

The Company required certain renovations to be carried out at the CN Station at North Battleford, Saskatchewan and allowed Greyhound Bus Company, the user of the space, to contract out the work.

The Brotherhood contends that the Company violated the letter dated March 5, 1982, concerning the contracting out of work when the renovations of the CN Station at North Battleford, Saskatchewan were contracted out.

The Company disagreed with the Brotherhood's contention.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

P. E. Scheerle – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

J. A. Cameron – Manager Labour Relations, Montreal

T. D. Ferens – System Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

D. A. Skelly – Employee Relations Officer, Winnipeg

And on behalf of the Brotherhood:

A. F. Currie – System Federation General Chairman, Winnipeg

F. L. Stoppler – Vice-President, Ottawa

The material portions of the letter governing contracting- out are as follows:-

The work in question was generally of a sort "presently and normally performed by employees" in the bargaining unit. The contracting-out, however, did not affect the rights of employees on the "seniority territory", that is the Saskatchewan Area, in which the work was performed, because such persons were fully employed, and thus not "unable to hold work" at the material times, so that no right of grievance arose with respect to such employees under the provisions of the contracting-out letter. Had there been such employees on layoff in that area at the time, it would be my view that their grievance should succeed, other things being equal.

It is contended that the contracting-out did affect employees elsewhere in the Prairie Region, although not in the Saskatchewan area, since there were a number of qualified employees at Winnipeg who were laid off at the material times (although they were recalled prior to the completion of the work in question). If such persons were otherwise entitled to perform the work in question, then their continuing to be laid off while the work was contracted-out meant, in my view, that they were "unable to hold work" as a result, and that they would have the right to grieve.

In fact, on the material before me, most of the employees laid off at Winnipeg were not in the classification and did not have the skills required for the work in question. Such persons, then, would not have been assigned to the work in any event, as not being within one of the classifications of employees who normally perform the work.

It may be that some of those on layoff at Winnipeg did have the qualifications and would have been entitled to the work had they been in the Saskatchewan Area. (There is no evidence in respect of any particular employee.) Rights to work, however, are exercised in respect of seniority territories, and it is only where displacement rights within a territory have been exhausted that displacement may occur on a regional basis. There is no general right to assignment on a regional basis. In the instant case, it has not been shown that any of the grievors could in fact be said to have been unable to hold work because of the contracting-out in question.

It was also contended that the Company had not discussed this matter with the Union at the beginning of the year, as the contracting-out letter contemplates. At that time, however, the Company had no plans in respect of the work in question, and there cannot be said to have been any violation of the letter in the circumstances.

For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.