SHP - 38
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
THE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
(the "Company")
AND
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO. 4
(the "Union")
RE:
GRIEVANCE RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF THE OGDEN/ALYTH AND CITY PICK-UP TRUCK IN CALGARY
SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill
APPEARING FOR THE UNION:
J. W. Asprey
J. H. Clark
APPEARING FOR THE COMPANY:
J. A. McGuire
A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on September 16, 1976.
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The Joint Statements of fact and of issue are as follows:
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACT
Prior to June 4, 1976 the vehicle used in the Ogden/Alyth and City Pick-Up service was the property of the Mechanical Department and was operated by a machinist's helper. The work performed in this service was Stores Department work and all charges, including the salary of the machinist's helper, were charged to the Stores Department.
Effective June 4, 1976, because the Mechanical Department vehicle was deteriorated to the point where it had to be scrapped, the Stores Department placed their own vehicle in this service and assigned their own driver.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE
It is the position of the Union that the operation of the Ogden/Alyth and City Pick-Up service should have continued to come under the jurisdiction of the machinists' craft.
It is the position of the Company that since the vehicle now provided belongs to the Stores Department and is operated by a Stores Department employee governed by another collective agreement, the Mechanical Department no longer has any entitlement to this work.
What has occurred appears to be, essentially, that the Company has assigned to a member of another bargaining unit work which was formerly assigned to a member of this bargaining unit. This is not, strictly speaking, a case of "contracting-out", although its effect appears the same from the point of view of members of this bargaining unit. The issue is whether in making the assignment it has, the Company has violated the provisions of the collective agreement.
The bargaining unit here in question is one of employees in locomotive and car departments. Employees in the stores department come within another bargaining unit and are represented by another bargaining agent. As is noted in the joint statement of fact, the work performed was "stores department work", although the operation of the vehicle was work which would come within the scope of work properly assigned to mechanic's helpers, under article 53.4 (a) of the collective agreement. That article is as follows:
53.4(a) Helpers' work shall consist of helping machinists and apprentices, operating drill presses and bolt threaders not using facing, boring or turning head or milling apparatus, wheel presses (on car, engine truck and tender truck wheels), nut tappers and facers, bolt pointing and centering machines, cranemen helpers on locomotive and car work, except as provided in Rule 53.2, attending tool room, shaft and machinery oiling; locomotive oiling; box packing, assisting in dismantling locomotives and engines; applying all couplings between engine and tender; locomotive tender and draft rigging work, except when performed by carmen, except as provided in Rule 53.2; beltmen; motor truck operators; supply man (material carrier); lagger (other than wood); and all other work generally recognized as helpers' work.
Article 53.4 (b) deals with the circumstances in which machinists may perform helpers' work; that is not, however, what has occurred here. Whatever effect the loss of this helper's job from this bargaining may have on other relationships within the bargaining unit is not in issue here. Here, the question is whether this collective agreement is violated where the work in question is assigned to employee in another bargaining unit.
Article 53.4 (a) establishes only that such work as was performed in the past (that is, certain stores department pick-up and delivery work, using a shops (locomotive and car) department vehicle) was properly assigned to a machinist's helper, as opposed, perhaps, to some other classification within the bargaining unit. It does not give this bargaining agent, or any of the crafts covered by this collective agreement, rights going beyond the scope of the bargaining unit represented. The operation of a vehicle forming part of the shop's equipment was one thing; the operation of a vehicle forming part of the stores department equipment, and for the purpose of work which is under the direction and control of the stores department, is another.
There is, of course, no jurisdictional dispute created as between machinists and any other craft covered by this collective agreement. The work is now performed by an employee who is not within a "craft unit" at all. It is work which, while it comes within the wide scope of tasks which a machinist's helper may perform, is not in itself exclusively craft work.
Accordingly, since the work involved is stores department work, and since it is now performed with stores department equipment, it would appear to me to be proper that it be performed by a stores department employee. The collective agreement does not require that in these circumstances the work must be done by a locomotive and car department employee.
There has been no violation of the collective agreement, and the grievance must accordingly be dismissed.
DATED at Toronto, this 27th day of September, 1976.
J. F. W. Weatherill
Arbitrator