The Union grieves the failure of the Company to bulletin a carman's position at MacMillan Yard. The Statement of Dispute and Joint Statement of Issue are as follows:

The material establishes that for some years Carman D. Sheen held a position on the 0800–1600 shift with Saturday and Sunday as rest days in the stores area of the car shop. While there is some dispute as to what the position was called during Mr. Sheen's incumbency, it does not appear disputed that the duties and responsibilities which he discharged have come to be designated by the job title of "Material Expeditor". The function of the position is largely clerical, and involves assisting in the ordering, purchasing and distributing of parts and materials required by the car department. The incumbent in the job works principally at a desk in the stores department has a telephone, access to the micro-fiche system and occasionally leaves that location to either obtain or deliver parts and materials as required. Because of the duties as well as the days and hours of work involved, the position of Material Expeditor is one which some employees would view as highly desirable.

The material discloses that Mr. Sheen successfully bid onto an Industrial Inspector's position and that on October 14, 1987 Carman R. Edgar was assigned to the Material Expeditor's position with Fridays and Saturdays as rest days, working on the 0800 to 1600 shift. The Union then objected to the Company's failure to bulletin the position under the provisions of article 23.11 of the collective agreement. During the course of subsequent discussions the Union suggested that the Material Expeditor's job should be designated as a "light duty position". Superintendent H. Emmerson then indicated that the Union's suggestion would be considered by the Company. However, nothing further transpired and the Union filed a formal grievance on January 18, 1988. Subsequently, on July 11, 1989, the Company awarded Mr. Edgar a position of carman in the car shop on the 0800–1600 shift with Friday and Saturday as rest days, pursuant to Bulletin C–17–89.

Thereafter, on September 27, 1989 the Company, in its Step IV reply acknowledged that it had violated article 23.11 by assigning Mr. Edgar to the Material Expeditor position. It asserted however, that the violation had been rectified when Mr. Edgar successfully bid into a car shop position with the same hours of work and rest days on July 11,1989.

The Union's representative submits that the Company could not arbitrarily designate the position of Material Expeditor as being within the car shop, and argues that it should have been separately designated as a specific position in stores which could be bid on by employees on the basis of their seniority. The Company's spokesman, on the other hand, maintains that it was within the discretion of the Company to designate the Material Expeditor's position as falling within the car shop, and that once Mr. Edgar had successfully bid into the car shop the Company was entitled to assign him to that job.

In the Arbitrator's view neither of the positions put forward by the parties is fully compelling in the context of this grievance. Rule 23.11 provides as follows:

It is common ground that rule 23.29 referred to within rule 23.11 relates to the qualifications of an employee claiming a position.

Article 33.14 also relates to bulletins in the context of displacement. It provides as follows:

The Company stresses that the designated work area referred to in the above rule is the basis for the bulletining process. It argues that positions in a designated work area are not discrete positions, but rather a pool of positions with certain shifts, days off, hours of work and rates of pay attached, among which the employees may be assigned interchangeably. It submits that the car shop is a designated work area within the context contemplated in rule 23, and has for many years been the "designated work area" shown on bulletins issued under rule 23.11.

In my view this grievance must be resolved having regard to the prior award of Arbitrator Weatherill in a grievance between the Railway Association of Canada and Division No. 4, Railway Employees Department (Award dated October 17, 1977). That grievance concerned five job bulletins issued in respect of machinists' jobs by CP Rail at its Angus Shops. The Union contended that the bulletins which simply designated the nature of the work as "machinist" were insufficient for the purposes of informed bidding by employees as contemplated by article 23.11. That grievance was sustained by the arbitrator. In so concluding Arbitrator Weatherill made the following comments at pp.6-9:

In the Arbitrator's view the above passage speaks appropriately to the merits of this case. Bulletin C–17–89, the instrument by which the Company maintains Mr.Edgar properly bid into the Material Expeditor's position provides no indication of the nature of the job made available by Mr. Sheen's departure. There is no material before the Arbitrator to disclose that the Material Expeditor's job was ever bulletined previously or, for that matter, treated as being part of the car shop. It appears from the record that for a time, in the early stages of the grievance, the Company asserted that the position was in fact related to the cleaning plant. In the Arbitrator's view what has transpired is the establishment of a new job within the car department. I am satisfied that it was within the prerogative of the Company to bring the Material Expeditor's position within the car shop for the purposes of bulletining under rule 23.11. For the reasons related by Arbitrator Weatherill in the above noted award, I am not satisfied that the bulletin provided sufficient information to enable employees to bid fairly in respect of that newly-created position, particular in light of its obvious distinction from other jobs within the car shop. In my view this conclusion is also supported by the reasoning of Arbitrator Weatherill in SHP 259, an award between VIA Rail Canada Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers more recently issued on February 27, 1989.

For the foregoing reasons the grievance is allowed, in part. The Arbitrator finds and declares that the bulletining of the position of Material Expeditor was not done in accordance with article 23.11 of the collective agreement insofar as potential applicants were deprived of insufficient information in respect of this new position. I am satisfied, however, that the Company was entitled to establish the position within the car department, and see no reason to depart from the observations of Arbitrator Weatherill with respect to the Company's flexibility of assignments within the departments, a matter quite separate from the sufficiency of a bulletin. The Company is therefore directed to re-bulletin the position of Material Expeditor in accordance with rule 23.11 of the collective agreement, in accordance with the principles expressed in this award. I retain jurisdiction in the event of any dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Award.