SHP 235
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY
(the "Company")
- and -
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CARMEN OF CANADA
(the "Union")
GRIEVANCE RE L. CHASSIE
SOLE ARBITRATOR:
Michel G. PicherAPPEARING FOR THE UNION:
Andre Bedard – General Chairman
S. A. Horodyski – National President
Brian Stevens – Secretary to General Chairman
APPEARING FOR THE COMPANY:
A. Rotondo – Manager, Labour Relations
R. G. Leach – Chief Mechanical Officer
W. G. Bishop – Superintendent Car Maintenance
Fred G. Mepham
Neil Drury – Director, Human Relations
A hearing in this matter was held in North Bay, Ontario on February 29, 1988.
AWARD
The dispute and joint statement of fact are as follows:
The Dispute
Claim of Carman L. Chassie that he should have been assigned to perform checkers’ duties on February 13, 1986 instead of Carman L. Davis.
Joint Statement of Fact
On February 13, 1986 there was an overload of checkers’ work and it was necessary to assign another man to assist the regular checker on the day shift. Mr. Chassie wanted the work but it was assigned to Carman L. Davis who had back problems.
The Brotherhood claimed a violation of the "disabled employees" letter on pages 142 and 143 of the wage agreement.
To succeed in its claim the Union must demonstrate the violation of a provision of a collective agreement. The grievance maintains that Carman Chassie was denied access to the "temporary vacant position of checker". Whether Mr. Davis should or should not have been assigned to the position is not a matter that should be addressed until it is first established that a vacancy existed.
The facts do not disclose the existence of a vacancy. It appears that on February 13, 1986 there was an excess of work for the checker. To relieve against that problem the Company assigned another person to assist the regular checker on the day shift. Placing it at its highest, the Company found itself with an excess of work for a particular employee and decided to temporarily relieve another employee from his regular duties to help deal with the situation. To borrow from the language of CROA case #233, the Company determined that the work available could be handled by the existing workforce. In those circumstances there was no temporary vacancy established which would invoke the rights of employees under rule 23.12.
For these reasons the grievance must be dismissed.
DATED at Toronto this 3rd day of March, 1988.
(signed) Michel G. Picher
Arbitrator