SHP - 14
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY
(the "Company")
AND
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES’ DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO. 4
(the "Union")
RE:
POSTING OF ASSIGNMENT IN THE DIESEL SHOP REPAIR ROOM
SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill
APPEARING FOR THE UNION:
J. H. Clark
M. McClenaghan
APPEARING FOR THE COMPANY:
A. Rotondo
J. King
A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on April 10, 1975.
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
COMPANY STATEMENT OF FACT:
Following the resignation of Machinist E. Hogan in May 1973, Machinist L. Bamford was assigned to the duties previously performed by Mr. Hogan.
UNION STATEMENT OF FACT:
The resignation of Machinist E. Hogan in May 1973 created a vacancy in the diesel shop repair room. Mr. L. Bamford was assigned to the position previously held by Mr. Hogan.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Union claims that Mr. Hogan’s position should have been bulletined in accordance with, Rule 23.11. The Company does not agree.
Rule 23.11 is as follows:
When vacancies occur for which replacements are required, or new jobs are created or additional staff is required in a classification in a craft for an expected period of 90 calendar days or more such vacancies or new jobs shall be bulletined for a period of not less than 7 calendar days to employees in the classification at the seniority terminal where they are created, and will be awarded the senior employees, subject to Rule 23.29, the local committee to be consulted.
It is the Company’s position that no vacancy was created following Mr. Hogan’s resignation. Mr. Hogan, it is argued, bad been a Machinist in the Diesel Shop Pool, and another employee in the pool was simply assigned to his duties. Historically, however, the job has constituted a distinct assignment, and while the pool employees generally rotated between jobs, the employee assigned to the repair room did not. It is said that Mr. Hogan got the job pursuant to Rule 25 of Wage Agreement No. 15, which was in effect at the time. The material provision of that agreement was different, but gave senior employees preference on "preference jobs".
In fact an employee was assigned to the particular set of tasks that Mr. Hogan had covered as a separate assignment. In effect, there was a replacement for the vacancy created by his resignation. In my view, that vacancy ought to have been filled by the bulletin procedure, pursuant to article 23.11.
For the foregoing reasons the grievance is allowed.
DATED at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 1975.
(sgd.) J. F. W. Weatherill
Arbitrator