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

The work in question was the construction of vans (based on purchased van shells) on company property. Certain parts of the work on each van were performed on the freight heavy repair track, some on the coach track, and some in the paint shop.

While the material before me is not clear as to the precise distribution of work on the vans, the company states that the work on each van started on the freight heavy repair track and was carried out there by Freight Carmen. Subsequently, work on the coach track was carried out by Coach Carmen. Both jobs come within the classification of Carman, but they are in separate departments for seniority purposes.

Work on vans has traditionally been regarded as freight car work (as is acknowledged in the joint statement), and has been performed by Freight Carmen. It may be noted, however, that the development of modern vans has meant that certain of the work involved now more closely approximates the sort of passenger car work done by Coach Carmen than the freight car work done by Freight Carmen. I say nothing as to the relative proportion of such work, however, and certainly much of the work in question was properly assigned to Freight Carmen.

The union contends, however, that Coach Carmen should not have been assigned to work on the vans, and that the jobs they filled ought to have been bulletined and assigned to Freight Carmen in the "pool".

Because the company regarded the work as urgent, it suspended much of its work on passenger coaches, so that the Coach Carmen thus freed up could be assigned to work on the vans. It would appear that what occurred was (for the Coach Carmen) simply a change of assignment from work on passenger cars to work (on the coach track) on vans. There would appear to have been no change in the number of employees in each department.

The union relies on article 23.11 of the collective agreement, which is as follows:

The only issue arising with respect to the application of that article in the instant case is whether or not the jobs in question (performed by Coach Carmen) represented "vacancies" or "new jobs" within the meaning of the article. In my view they did not. The complement of Coach Carmen was not altered, and it is not suggested that the assignments given them went beyond their qualifications. While Freight Carmen had traditionally done "van work", that is not to say that they had an exclusive claim to perform the particular work that was done in this case – by Coach Carmen on the coach track.

Even if article. 23.ll does apply, and the jobs ought to have been bulletined, they would be bulletined "to employees in the classification" and not simply to Freight Carmen.

Both parties referred to the "Interpretation of Rules" provision attached to the collective agreement and relating to article 23.11. That provision is as follows:

It would appear, from the material before me, that what occurred was simply a reassignment (whether or not it should also be called a "transfer") within a section or a department. If it was a transfer between sections, there was in any event no overall change in total employment in the shop. Thus, the matter would be covered by the "interpretation".

In any event, then, it is my view that there has been no violation of agreement, and that the company was entitled to assign Coach Carmen in the way it did, without the necessity of bulletining. The grievance must therefore be dismissed.

DATED AT TORONTO, this 30th day of October, 1980.

Arbitrator