CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
CASE NO. 1240
Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, May 8, 1984
CP EXPRESS & TRANSPORT
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES
The abolishment of the position of Foreman on the 1:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. shift at Lachine Terminal, Montreal, Quebec, and the work allocated to the Supervisory Staff.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Employee W. Thornton, was issued a notice that effective June 14, 1982, his position of working foreman would be abolished. The Brotherhood contends that the work normally performed by the foreman was allocated to the supervisory staff.
The Brotherhood requested the position be reinstated.
The Company declined the Brotherhood's request.
FOR THE BROTHERHOOD: FOR THE COMPANY:
(SGD.) J. CRABB (SGD.) N. W. FOSBERY
FOR: System General Chairman Director, Labour Relations
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
N. W. Fosbery – Director, Labour Relations, Toronto
And on behalf of the Brotherhood:
J. J. Boyce – General Chairman, Toronto
G. Moore – Vice-General Chairman, Moose Jaw
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
In this case the grievor's position as a working foreman on the evening shift was abolished owing to a downturn in the Company's business. He exercised his seniority rights under the collective agreement and continued employment as a warehouseman.
The supervisory functions formerly performed by the grievor were transferred to the Company's supervisory staff. Approximately 30 minutes of the grievor's shift was devoted to performing these duties when he occupied the position of working foreman. The balance of his shift comprised physical duties that he presently performs as a warehouseman. In the result, the grievor has lost the premium he earned as a working foreman by virtue of the abolition of that position.
The Trade Union has referred to no article in the collective agreement that the Company has purported to violated. Indeed, in the absence of a job protection provision contained in the collective agreement, I cannot discern any fetter on management's right, particularly in having regard to the legitimate business reasons that prompted the change, from doing exactly what it did.
There being no provision of the collective agreement that was breached, the grievance is denied.
(signed) DAVID H. KATES