BETWEEN

(the "Company")

AND

(the "Union")

SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill

J. W. Asprey

A. Manocchio

J. E. Cameron

A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on October 11, 1977.

The Joint Statement of Fact and Joint Statement of Issue in this matter are as follows:

This grievance relates particularly to five job bulletins issued in October and November, 1976, to employees in the Company's Angus shops. To, take one example of the bulletins in question, Bulletin No. 22, issued on October 28, 1976, was as follows:

The Union contends that this bulletin, like certain others issued at the location in question, did not comply with the requirements of article 23.11 of the collective agreement. That article provides as follows:

The Union contended that proper bulletins have been issued at other locations, and, on other occasions, at the Angus shops. For example, the following bulletin was considered as meeting the requirements of article 23.11:

The Union, contends that the job bulletins are insufficient in that they do not set out sufficient detail with respect to the job in question to permit employees to exercise a meaningful choice with respect to the vacancy. The Company's position is that employees in the shopcraft trades may be expected to perform any work in the trade for which they are qualified. These two positions are, in fact, not contradictory. The issue to be determined is, of course, whether the bulletins referred to comply with the requirements of article 23.11. That article requires the posting, "to employees in the classification at the seniority terminal where they are created", of "vacancies – for which new jobs are required" or "new jobs – in a classification in a craft".

In my view, this article calls for the posting of a particular vacancy, in the sense of a particular job of work to be done, and not simply the announcement of an increase in, or the continuation of the complement required in any classification. Thus, in the first example above cited, Bulletin No. 22, the description of the work available simply as that of "Machinist" is not sufficient, because of the wide, range of possible work to which it might refer. It may be, as the Company argues, that anyone classified as a "machinist" should be expected to perform any machinist's work, but the issue here is as to the sufficiency of a bulletin, and in that respect, however qualified a machinist may be, he may only be interested in applying on job bulletins referring to particular vacancies. The second example given, Bulletin No. 65, satisfies the requirements of the collective agreement in this regard, in that it indicates the particular sort of machinist's work which is being offered.

While article 23.11 requires, in my view, the description (in general terms), of the vacancy or job involved, there are certain comments which should be made, having regard to the arguments presented at the hearing, and to the general nature of this interpretation. One is that the sufficiency of the posting is to be determined having regard to the circumstances of each case. It is to be noted, for example, that the posting of a vacancy for a "Welder" in the Welding Department at Angus shops, and the description of the work as "welding" was considered by the Union to convey sufficient information to permit potential bidders to appreciate the nature of the work involved. Again, with respect to a job bulletin at the Weston shops on the Prairie Region, the posting of a number of "Machinist" positions in the Millwright shop, and the description of the work as that of "Millwright or any other Machinist duties that may be required", was considered adequate in that case. Where, however, significant details can be given as to the particular work involved, as in various other examples offered by the Union, that should be done.

It is further to be noted that the description or detailing of the particular work involved in a job bulletin does not in itself commit the Company to any sort of exhaustive or exclusive definition of the job. The Company's entitlement to assign work is not restricted to any greater degree by what is held in this award than it may already be by the provisions of the collective agreement (nor could it be, since this award does no more than indicate the application of article 23.11 to particular circumstances). Again, article 23.11 does not create "job ownership". The Union explicitly acknowledges that the Company may, where the requirements of operations necessitate, assign different work, to any employee holding a bulletined job, and that it may assign other employee to fill in, temporarily, for the employee so assigned.

What is in issue in this case, however, is simply the sufficiency of the job bulletins referred to. It is my award, for the reasons above set out, that those notices did not sufficiently comply with the requirements of article 23.11. No other relief is sought than this finding, since the jobs were filled by senior applicants who apparently had sufficient appreciation in fact of what jobs were involved.

DATED at Toronto, this 17th day of October, 1977.

Arbitrator