CANADIAN
RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 3910
Heard in
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY
And
TEAMSTERS
DISPUTE:
Interpretation and application of Article 132 of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference – Conductors, Trainmen and Yardmen – Division 105.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On
With change
of card on
The Company
denies the
FOR THE UNION: FOR THE COMPANY:
(SGD.) J. HOLLIDAY (SGD.) D. CROSSAN
GENERAL CHAIRMAN FOR: DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOURCES
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
D. Crossan – Manager, Labour Relations, Prince George
K. Morris –
Sr. Manager, Labour Relations,
B. Laidlaw –
Manager, Labour Relations,
K. Hutchinson –
Auditor,
D. Rechsteiner – Trainmaster, Smithers
There appeared on behalf of the
J. Holliday –
General Chairman,
W. Martin –
Local Chairman,
M. Braaten –
Vice-Local Chairman,
G. Geddes –
Local Chairman,
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The
The Company
raised a preliminary objection to the timeliness of the grievance relating to
the change in service from the
The pertinent provisions of article 132, for the purposes of these grievances, read as follows:
1 (a) The Railway will not initiate any material change in working conditions which will have materially adverse effects on employees without giving as much advance notice as possible to the General Chairman concerned, along with a full description thereof and with appropriate details as to the contemplated effects upon employees concerned. No material change will be made until agreement is reached or a decision has been rendered in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of this Article.
(b) The Railway will negotiate with the Union measures other than the benefits covered by Sections 2 and 3 of this Article to minimize such adverse effects of the material change on employees who are affected thereby. Such measures shall not include changes in rates of pay. Relaxation in schedule rules considered necessary for the implementation of a material change is also subject to negotiation.
…
(l) This Article does not apply in respect of changes brought about by the normal application of the collective agreement, changes resulting from a decline in business activity, fluctuations in traffic, traditional reassignment of work or other normal changes inherent in the mature of the work in which employees are engaged.
As is evident
from the foregoing provisions, not all changes in operations will justify the
application of the material change provisions of article 132 of the collective
agreement. That is reflected in the following passage of an award by Arbitrator
Hope between these same parties dated
In particular, a “decline in business activity” which results from changes in service designed by the Railway to achieve an acceptable level of efficiency is not a distinction that takes the initiative outside of the spirit, if not the letter, of Article 132(1)(l). On the facts, the Railway took steps to reduce service in order to achieve a profitable balance between service and cost. That is a valid business reason for initiating the change and was optional only in the sense that the Railway could elect or be compelled to maintain the yard assignment despite its apparent inefficiency in terms of productivity. In my view, electing to discontinue what amounted to a subsidy of services to users in Dawson Creek was an initiative that fell within Article 132.(1)(l)
In the Arbitrator’s
view the principle underlying the foregoing passage applies to all of the
circumstances in relation to the grievances before me. The unchallenged
representation of the Company is that mill closures, and resulting losses in
freight traffic significantly impacted the Company in all of the areas where
the operational changes were made, and in fact necessitated the operational
changes. The Company refers the Arbitrator to the closure of Canfor’s Chetwynd
saw mill and its plywood mills in
Similarly, with
respect to the changes on the Squamish, Lillooet and
The Arbitrator
can appreciate the
I am satisfied that on the material before me the Company has amply demonstrated that the changes implemented fall under the exception to the general provisions of article 132 of the collective agreement. The grievance must therefore be dismissed.
ARBITRATOR