BETWEEN

(the "Company")

AND

(the "Union")

SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill

J. H. Clark

M. McClenaghan

J. A. McGuire

J. E. Cameron

D.V. Rose

A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on April 11, 1975.

By Rule 3.1, employees are to be assigned (subject to certain exceptions not here material), two rest days in seven, and these days are to be consecutive, as far as is possible, within the terms of the article. In the assignment of rest days, preference is to be given to Saturday and Sunday, and then to Sunday and Monday. It is provided, however, that work weeks may be staggered in accordance with the Railways’ operational requirements.

Rule 3.2 is as follows:

In the instant case the Company did alter the pattern of its assignments for certain positions at the St. Luc Diesel Shop, so that for the employees affected by the grievance, rest days would be other than Saturday and Sunday, or Sunday and Monday. A dispute as to the necessity of this has arisen. Under Rule 3.2, the onus is on the Company to establish that this change from the previous assignments (which had been in accordance with the pattern contemplated by article 3.2), was necessary in the sense described in the Rule.

The St. Luc Diesel Shop is a "running shop" rather than a "main shop". As such, it operates on a continuous basis, performing day-to-day servicing, inspection and repair of diesel locomotives. Prior to the change in assignments which led to certain employees being reassigned, with rest days other than Saturday and Sunday, the Company changed its system of mileage inspection of locomotives to one of datal inspection. This permitted a smoother, more constant flow of work through the shops. This change of method was, certainly a proper exercise of the management function. Partly as a result of this change, and partly, it seems, in the course of normal operations, it was found that there was more work to be done on weekends than could be handled by the staff then scheduled for weekend work. To increase the overall work force would not be a reasonable move, since the problem was not one of an insufficiency of staff in relation to the work to be done, but rather one of unbalanced scheduling of staff in relation to work required to be done on a continuous-operations basis. It is clearly provided by Rule 3.2 that the Company may, schedule its assignments so as to avoid additional relief service or the working of employees on assigned rest days. The schedules here complained of were instituted in order to meet work requirements, and to avoid the extra or overtime assignments referred to. I find that they were in fact necessary to meet the requirements of operations.

It is accordingly my conclusion that the assignments in question were not in violation of Rule 3.2. Accordingly the grievance is dismissed.

DATED at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 1975.

Arbitrator