IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC LIMITED
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY SHOPCRAFT EMPLOYEES AND ALLIED WORKERS
IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCES OF P. T. MOFFITT AND A. C. HERRON
SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
M. M. Yorston
And on behalf of the Union:
J. W. Asprey
A hearing in this matter was held at Montreal on June 11, 1981.
The Joint Statement of Fact and Joint Statement of Issue in
this matter are as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACT
A new car repair facility was opened at Saint John, N.B. December 1, 1980, and the staff of Carmen at McAdam, N.B., was reduced to two. At McAdam, Carmen had previously watered passenger Train No. 12, however, subsequent to December 1, 1980, this work had been performed by Labourers not covered by Wage Agreement No. 16. The two remaining Carmen at McAdam, P.T. Moffitt and A.C. Herron, submitted time claims for the times that this work was performed by Labourers.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE
It is the position of the Union that the Company violated Rule 5.5 of Wage Agreement No. 16 when they declined to pay the claims of Messrs. Moffitt and Herron.
It is the position of the Company that Rule 5.5 does not support the claim of the Union and that there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement inasmuch as the work in question is not reserved to the Carmenís classification.
The fact that there was a reduction in staff at McAdam (as a result of the opening of a new facility at Saint John, and the transfer there of a number of employees from McAdam), is not in question. Rather, the question is whether or not the grievors, being Carmen, were entitled to be called to perform certain work which was performed by Labourers at times when the grievors were not on duty.
The work in question is that of watering the dining car on VIA Rail trains 11 and 12. Prior to the installation of VIA Rail service, the watering of CP Rail trains at McAdam had been performed by carmen. When VIA Rail service began, the watering of the passenger trains continued to be performed by carmen. It is probably fair to say that if carmen are on duty at the times when passenger trains are to be watered, carmen are assigned to perform such work. Certainly, the work is of a sort which is within the jurisdiction of carmen. The question is, however, whether or not that is an exclusive jurisdiction, and whether or not carmen are entitled to be called in to perform it if required at a time when no carman is on duty.
The grievors have submitted claims for payment pursuant to article 5.5 of the collective agreement. That article is as follows:
5.5 Carmen and their helpers, including coach cleaners, required to attend schedule passenger trains, or sections thereof, for inspecting, icing, watering, cleaning, and putting on supplies, outside of regularly assigned working hours will be allowed a minimum of two hours at straight time rates.
Article 5 deals generally with "Overtime and Calls". Clearly, if carmen or their helpers are called to perform the sorts of work referred to, including the work in question, they would be entitled to the payment prescribed by that article. Such payment, it may be noted, is different from the usual call-in or reporting pay provided for by article 5.4. For a time, after the reduction in forces at McAdam, the grievors were called in to perform such work outside of their regularly assigned working hours, and they were paid in accordance with article 5.5. That is, in such cases they were required to attend and were entitled to payment accordingly. They are, however, no longer required to attend.
Article 5.5 deals with the payment to be made to employees in certain circumstances and for certain types of work. It does not deal with the matter of limitation of jurisdiction over work. Certainly, it contemplates that carmen are expected to perform watering as well as other tasks, but it does not purport to prevent other employees from performing such work; it does not confer an exclusive jurisdiction.
What the company has done is to assign certain work, of a type which might properly be done and which has been done by a member of the bargaining unit to an employee in another bargaining unit. The performance of the particular amount of work in question does not bring the person performing it within the scope of this unit. The collective agreement provision referred to (article 5.5) does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to the work. There does not appear, then, to have been any violation of the collective agreement. It may be added that the article which generally sets out the nature of Carmenís work, article 58.2, does not contain any provision of exclusive jurisdiction.
There has, therefore, been no violation of the collective agreement, and the grievance must accordingly be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 16th day of June, 1981.
(signed) J. F. W. Weatherill