Heard at Montreal, Tuesday, March 10, 1987

Concerning

and

Claims of Conductor W. K. Anderson and crew, Moose Jaw, for held away-from-home terminal time in the amount of 41 and 37 miles on January 15 and 21, 1986 respectively, when held in excess of 12 hours between tours of duty at other than home terminal.

On January 14 and 21, 1986, Conductor Anderson and crew were called for unassigned work train service in accordance with the provisions of article 20, Clause (f) which states as follows:

On January 14, 1986, Conductor Anderson and crew were tied up in Rosetown at 1710. They resumed their work train service at 0830 on January 15, 1986. On January 21, 1986 Conductor Anderson and crew were tied up in Rosetown at 1700. They resumed their work train service at 0800 on January 22, 1986.

Claims were submitted for being held at other than home terminal in excess of 12 hours in accordance with the provisions of article 15, first paragraph, which states as follows:

The Union contends that clearly this pool crew was working in unassigned service and such service is specified as coming under the provisions of article 15, first paragraph. We ask that the claims as noted in the dispute be allowed.

Inasmuch as Conductor Anderson and crew were paid at least a minimum day for each day they were held in work train service as provided for in article 20 (a), the Company contends that they were properly paid and have no further entitlement to payment for time between their tours of duty in work train service.

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

D. A. Lypka – Supervisor, Labour Relations, Prairie Region

B. P. Scott – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal

G. W. McBurney – Assistant Supervisor, Labour Relations, Prairie Region

And on behalf of the Union:

I. Robb – Secretary, Thunder Bay

J. W. Shannon – Vice-General Chairman, Calgary

The union relies upon the provision of article 15 of the collective agreement. It is clear, however, that that is a general provision respecting unassigned service. The treatment of unassigned crews in work train service is more particularly addressed in article 20 of the agreement. Clause (f) of that provision provides:

The basis of pay for work train service is described in article 20 (a) which provides, in part, as follows:

In the case at hand the grievors were plainly an unassigned crew used exclusively in work train service within the meaning of article 20 (f). The terms of the collective agreement governing the payment of work train crews make no provision for additional payment other than for a basic day, save where more than a basic day is actually worked. It is not uncommon for work trains to be tied up en route after the completion of a work day, as was the instant crew at Rosetown. In that circumstance article 20 (a) of the collective agreement includes specific guarantee provisions to protect a crew that is laid up. It is not apparent to the Arbitrator why, in that circumstance, the crew should require the further protection of article 15.

The history of the application of article 20 lends support to the position advanced by the Company. Prior to 1962 an unassigned crew in work train service received through freight rates and worked under through freight conditions for the first two calendar days, after which it was subject to work train conditions. In other words, a distinction was then drawn expressly between work train conditions and other rates or conditions.

There is further evidence to support the Company's interpretation. The Union's own recognition that unassigned crews in work train service would be considered to be an assigned work train crew for the purposes of wages is reflected in a letter dated May 10, 1932 from the Western Lines General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, a predescessor to the instant Union. Referring to the predescessor provision to article 20, General Chairman Hendrick wrote at that time:

It further appears that the interpretation advanced in this grievance by the Company was again accepted by the General Chairman of the Union in 1936. The 1936 minutes of the General Committee of Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen reflect a question being raised as to the payment to be made for an unassigned crew ordered for work train service and tied up for Sunday. The crew's claim for payment under the layaway-from-home rule was denied by the General Chairman who ruled:

The minutes note that the full General Committee of the Union concurred in the ruling.

While the provision for the payment of two calendar days at through freight rates has been removed, no other material change has been made to the provisions of article 20 (a). There is, in other words, no reason to interpret the rights of an unassigned crew in work train service laid up on route as being any different today than they were in 1936. On the basis of the history of the provision, the Arbitrator must accept the assertion of the Company that when unassigned crews become entitled to be governed by "work train conditions" they are entitled only to the daily guarantee provided for that work when tied up on route and cannot invoke the further benefit of the held-away-from-home-provisions of article 15 of the collective agreement. Any change in that entitlement is a matter for negotiation.

The Arbitrator therefore concludes that at all material times Conductor Anderson and crew were an unassigned crew in work train service governed by the provisions of article 20 of the collective agreement. As such they were covered by work train conditions and were subject to the specific provisions of article 20 (a) in respect of the period for which they were laid up at the end of the day's work on the date in question. As they were paid at least the equivalent of the guarantee of eight hours pay established for each day they were held in work train service, their wage entitlement is fully satisfied. Article 15 is not applicable in the circumstances, and the grievance must be dismissed.