BETWEEN:

AND

SOLE ARBITRATOR: J. F. W. Weatherill

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

L. A. Clarke –

M. M. Yorston –

And on behalf of the Union:

J. W. Asprey –

E. Tandy –

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:

In the past, while bent or damaged uncoupling levers were sold as scrap, some were repaired, and such repairs were generally carried out by carmen. In recent years, with the advent of cushioned underframe freight equipment, uncoupling levers have been developed which operate with a telescoping mechanism, constructed of steel tubing with plastic inserts and nylon sleeves. These devices have also been repaired by carmen. It is still the case that where straightening of bent or damaged levers can be done without removing the lever from the car, such work is performed by carmen. What is complained of here is the contracting out of the more extensively damaged levers, which must be removed from the car.

In order to carry out adequate repairs on the more extensively damaged levers, a cold forge or press must be used. The company does not have such equipment at Windsor, and for this reason, and for reasons of efficient repair of a larger number of levers, the company contracted-out the work of repair of extensively damaged levers. This has resulted in a greatly reduced requirement for the purchase of new levers. It is not a matter of employee skills, but rather one of available equipment to satisfactorily perform the amount of work required. The work, it is clear, was "normally performed" by carmen in the past, but because of the limitation of available equipment the proportion of repairable levers was not what it is by reason of the subcontracting.

The agreement between the parties with respect to contracting-out, dated April 28, 1978, is to the effect that work normally performed by employees will not be contracted-out unless it comes within the exceptions set out in the agreement. In my view, the work in question comes within exception (3), which is as follows:

I do not consider, nor was it argued, that the company was under an obligation to provide a cold forge or press at its Windsor shop in order to perform this work. Such equipment was, I find, "essential" to the proper repair of a reasonable proportion of bent or damaged uncoupling levers. For this reason, the contracting-out in question was not in violation of the collective agreement.

However this may be, the agreement relating to contracting-out is quite specific as to the circumstances in which a grievance may be brought. Those are set out in the final paragraph of the agreement as follows:

Under this provision, even where work is contracted-out which does not come within the exception described in the agreement, a grievance may only be brought in respect of an employee (or employees), unable to hold work as a result of the contracting-out. Whether or not there were employees already on layoff does not appear to be a material consideration. The question is whether or not the contracting-out itself has resulted in an employee being unable to hold work. In the instant case, the contracting-out of the work in question has not led to any change in the number of carmen employed at Windsor. It is not, in these circumstances, a case of the company’s "chipping away" at the union’s jurisdiction or at the scope of carmen’s normal work.

For the foregoing reasons, the grievance must be dismissed.

DATED AT TORONTO this 16th day of June, 1981.