CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3740
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION
Claim on behalf of Mr. Chris Blaschuk.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1) The Company is in violation of Section 3.7 of the Machine Operators Supplemental Agreement. That section provides that “an employee working in a position in Column A may establish seniority by bid in a classification in which they are qualified to work in Column B and in which they did no[t] previously hold seniority and will thereafter accumulate seniority in that classification.. .”
2) The grievor is a Machine Operator (in a position listed in Column A) who applied to establish seniority by bid in the LTM classification (a position listed in Column B).
3) When section 3.7 states that “an employee may establish seniority by bid in a classification in which they are qualified to work,” it means that an employee must be qualified to work the position (1) to the extent that past practice dictates and (2) to the same extent that applies to every other employee who applies for the position.
4) Employees have never been required to complete LTM training before being awarded LTM positions. It should be noted that, over many years many employees have been awarded LTM positions who were no more qualified for the position than the grievor. In fact, in the present case the individual who was awarded the LTM position at Guelph Junction, Mr. Kyle Buchanan, possessed no greater qualifications than the grievor.
5) The Company has treated the grievor in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
The Union requests that: As a resolve to this grievance the
The Company denies the Union’s contentions and declines the
(SGD.) WM. BREHL (SGD.) K. HEIN
PRESIDENT FOR: ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
M. Thompson –
Labour Relations Officer,
B. Lockerby –
Labour Relations Officer,
J. Dorais – Labour Relations Officer, Calgary
R. Wilson –
Assistant Vice-President, Industrial Relations,
C. Dupuis – Service Area Planner, Clagary
And on behalf of the
Wm. Brehl –
D. W. Brown –
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The relevant provision of the collective agreement in dispute is section 3.7 of the Machine Operators Supplemental Agreement which reads as follows:
3.7 An employee working in a position in Column A may establish seniority by bid in a classification in which they are qualified to work in Column B and in which they did no[t] previously hold seniority in that classification as provided in Article 10.14 (a) of Wage Agreement No. 41.
I accept the Employer’s point at the outset that the grievor and Mr. Buchanan, who was awarded the position, fall under different provisions of Wage Agreement No. 41. The grievor was a Machine Operator in a classification listed under Column A who was bidding the position to establish “seniority only” under section 3.7. Mr. Buchanan, on the other hand, bid the position with the intention of actually working in it and, unlike the grievor, was not governed by the same provision for that reason. In Mr. Buchanan’s case, Wage Agreement No. 41 applied and he was awarded the position pursuant to section 9.14. Section 9.14 includes a reference to Appendix A-3 of Wage Agreement No. 41 which provides that an employee may be awarded a position with the requirement that he or she “can be qualified in a reasonable period of time”. There is no comparable on-the-job training language found in article 3.7.
The thrust of the
For these reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
May 4 , 2009 (original signed by) JOHN M. MOREAU QC