SHP - 80
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
Canadian Pacific Limited
(the "Company")
AND
DIVISION NO. 4, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPARTMENT, AFL - CIO
(the "Union")
RE:
CLAIM FOR PREPARATORY TIME
SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill
APPEARING FOR THE UNION:
E. Tandy
APPEARING FOR THE COMPANY:
M. Yorston
S. J. Samosinsky
A hearing in this matter was held in Ottawa on July 30, 1980.
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The Joint Statement of Facts and the Joint Statement of Issue in this matter are as follows:
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On September 19, 1979, a bulletin was issued at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, advertising 4 temporary positions of Carmen to cut up and load scrap away from the terminal.
2. The successful applicants were Carmen E. J. Liberet, R. G. Hayward, B. F. Moerike and V. J. Legare and on September 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and October 1, 2, and 3, 1979, they left Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, at 0600 hours and travelled to Secretan, Saskatchewan, to perform the bulletined work.
3. The claimants returned to their home terminal each night and were paid overtime rates for all time worked outside the regularly bulletined hours 0800 - 1600.
4. The claimants submitted wage claims which included the one hour period between 0500 and 0600 hours September, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and October 1, 2, and 3, 1979.
5. The Company declined to pay the wage claims for the period between 0500 and 0600 hours September 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and October 1, 2, and 3, 1979.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1. It is the position of the Union that the Company violated Rule 6.4 of Wage Agreement No. 16 when it declined to pay the wage claims.
2. It is the position of the Company that the employees were not governed by the provisions of Rule 6.4 and that preparatory time was not applicable.
The bulletin for the temporary assignment was, it will be noted, posted in September, 1979, and the work was performed in late September and early October. It may be that the job did not have to be posted, but whether it was or not would not affect the pay entitlement of those actually performing the job. Further, while the job bulletin indicated what the regular working hours would be, and that accommodations would be provided, it was not invalidated by the fact that at the employees' request (justified by the shortcomings of the accomodations offered), employees were allowed to return home daily.
The duties of the temporary job, as set out in the bulletin, were "cutting up and loading scrap and other such duties that may be required". This work involved cars that had been set aside following a derailment on July 21, 1979, which had been cleared by an auxiliary crew at that time.
The union maintains that article 6.4 applies, and that in addition to their payment for regular hours worked (0800 to 1600) and for overtime (from the time they reported at Moose Jaw at 0600 until the time they returned, by company transportation, at 2100 hours), the grievors should also be paid one hour's "preparatory time" purusant to article 6.4. That article is as follows:
6.4 If required to leave home station. during overtime hours. they will be allowed one hour preparatory time at time and one-half.
Article 6.4 must be read in the context of article 6, which provides special rules for emergency calls and wrecking service. It deals, as set out in article 6.1, with the cases of regularly assigned employees who are called for emergency work away from their regular place of work. The union's position is that the work involved was "an extension of wrecking service" and that article 6.4 therefore applied. In my view, however, the work done, although involving cars which had been in a wreck some time before, was not wrecking service. Certainly the grievor's assignment was not an "emergency call". They worked on a daily basis, and the substitution of a return to Moose Jaw on a daily basis for the accommodation which was found to be inadequate would appear to justify payment on an overtime basis for hours in excess of the regular hours including those spent in travel.
This was simply not an assignment to which article 6.4 applied, and the grievance must accordingly be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 1st day of August, 1980.
(signed) J.F.W. Weatherill
Arbitrator