IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
CANADIAN PACIFIC LIMITED
Canadian Council of Railway Shopcraft Employees and Allied Workers
IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF A. MICHELIN
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 July 16, 1982.
The Joint Statement of Fact and Issue in this matter is as follows:
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACT:
Mr. Andre Michelin, Machinist, Trois Rivieres, Quebec, was laid off effective January 12, 1982.
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Unionís position is that the Company violated the provisions of Rules 12.1 and 53.2 of Wage Agreement No. 16.
The Companyís position is that there was insufficient work at Trois Rivières to warrant a full-time Machinist position, and that the job abolishment was not in violation of Rules 12.1 and 53.2.
The grievor is a Machinist, with seniority date of January 1, 1969. Until his position was abolished and he was laid off, he worked a regular five-day assignment at Trois Rivières. Since January, 1974, he appears to have been the only Machinist holding a regular assignment there. Before that, there had been two Machinists, but a change in the amount of work to be done, brought about by changes in the number and type of locomotives to be serviced, had reduced the need for Machinists at that point. Such changes continued, and with the poor economic situation, the company decided to abolish the grievorís position, as set out in the Joint Statement.
Since that time, certain Machinistís work has continued to be performed. It has been performed by foremen. The issue is whether or not this is in violation of the collective agreement.
Article 53.2 of the collective agreement sets out the scope of Machinistís work. The work in question, of course, comes generally within that article. The grievor certainly did Machinistís work, and foremen are now doing some of the work he did. Article 53.2 does not confer an exclusive right to perform such work, although it does regulate the assignment of such work as between bargaining-unit employees in one or another of the crafts covered by the collective agreement. In the instant case, work which may be described as Machinistís work was performed by foremen. That is not in itself a violation of article 53.2.
Article 12.1 of the collective agreement is as follows:
12.1 Master Mechanics or foremen shall not be allowed to do mechanicsí work when mechanics are working on a reduced hourly basis and are available. This is not intended to restrict the use of working foremen in accordance with established practice at small points.
In the instant case, while it is true that the grievorís hours were "reduced", in the sense that they were reduced by one hundred per cent by reason of his position being abolished, he was not "working on a reduced hourly basis". He was not working at all, although it appears that he was entitled to exercise seniority when his position was abolished.
"Working on a reduced hourly basis" is not the same thing as being "laid off" or as having oneís position "abolished". The collective agreement simply does not set out a prohibition of foremen performing bargaining-unit work in circumstances such as these. Accordingly, it must be concluded that there was no violation of the collective agreement, and the grievance must therefore be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 22nd day of July, 1982.
(signed) J. F. W. Weatherill