SHP - 437



Canadian Pacific Limited

(the "Company")


National Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada [CAW CANADA] Local 101

(the "Union")

RE: Overtime Claim on Behalf of C. Talbot

Sole Arbitrator: Michel G. Picher


Appearing For The Union:

A. Rosner – National Representative, Montreal

S. Levert – Regional Vice-President, Local 101, Montreal

A. Desmarais – Local Chair, Local 101 Unité Québec

G. Antinozzi – Local Chair, Local 101 Unité Québec

Appearing For The Company:

G. St-Pierre – Human Resources Coordinator

A. Y. de Montigny – Director, Labour Relations, Montreal

M. Bergeron – Manager, Mechanical Facilities, Montreal

G. Abran – Spec. Santé Sécurité, Resources humaines, Montreal

R. deMontignac – Manager, Benefits & Deployment, Calgary

G. Pepin – Employment Security Deployment Officer, Calgary

C. Thibault – HRIS Specialist, Montreal

D. J. David – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal


A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on Monday, February 17, 1997.




Réclamation de temps supplémentaire par M. C. Talbot pour travail effectué à Québec.


En août 1995, M. Talbot, alors assigné à un poste permanent de wagonnier à la cour de triage St. Luc, a appliqué sur un poste temporaire de relève à Trois-Rivières, lequel devait se terminer vers le 18 mars 1996. M. Talbot s'est vu décerné ce poste.

Lors de son assignation à Trois Rivières, un autre poste temporaire s'ouvrit à Québec, soit à partir du 17 janvier 1996.

M. Talbot fut assigné au poste temporaire de Québec à la fin de son assignation temporaire de Trois-Rivières, soit à compter du 18 mars 1996.


Le Syndicat réclame que la Compagnie rembourse tout le temps supplémentaire survenu entre le 17 janvier et le 18 mars 1996 à Québec.

La Compagnie refuse la réclamation du Syndicat.

Pour le Syndicat : Pour la Compagnie :

(signé) S. Levert (signé) A. Y. de Montigny

Vice-président, Local 101 Directeur, Relations industrielles

The material before the Arbitrator establishes, beyond controversy, that as a matter of practice, the Company does advise senior employees when temporary vacancies become available. These are generally posted in principal locations, such as Montreal.

It is common ground that Mr. Talbot was working in Trois-Rivières, filling a temporary vacancy, when a more lucrative temporary vacancy for work in Quebec City was announced to other senior employees. It would appear that the grievor was not made aware of the opportunity for the work in Quebec at the time. It is also not disputed that the temporary vacancy in Quebec City was substantially more lucrative than the work which he had undertaken at Trois-Rivières. The Union relies on the provisions of Rule 23.12 of the collective agreement which are as follows:

23.12 When vacancies occur or new jobs are created or additional staff is required in a classification, in the craft for an expected period of less than 90 calendar days, such vacancies or new positions may be claimed by the senior qualified employees from the respective point within the home seniority terminal desiring same; the local Union Representative to be consulted in each case.

Employees assigned to fill positions under this rule 23.12 shall be considered as temporarily assigned and on completion of such temporary positions they shall be returned to their former basic regular assignments. For the purpose of this Clause, annual vacation relief, leave of absence, sickness, injury, etc., shall be positions coming under the scope of this Rule 23.12. (See Appendix 4.)

It does not appear disputed that, for the purposes of this grievance, the locations of Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City are treated by the parties as being a single location within the meaning of the rule. It would therefore appear that the grievor, Mr. Talbot, would qualify as the senior qualified employee from the respective point within the home seniority terminal desiring the Quebec City assignment.

In the circumstances, the Arbitrator can see no compelling basis for the position of the Company. As a general rule, provisions of this type are designed to allow senior employees reasonable access to the most lucrative or otherwise most desirable work. There is, moreover, no suggestion in the instant case that the Company would have incurred moving or transportation costs by reason of a second move being made by Mr. Talbot, and presumably the move of another employee to replace him in Trois-Rivières. Although one of the Company’s representatives suggests that moves from one temporary vacancy to another are only allowed within a given plant or locality, the Arbitrator is referred to no language within the collective agreement or any jointly understood past practice in respect of this issue. The Arbitrator is therefore compelled to resolve the matter on the language of Rule 23.12 of the collective agreement. For the reasons touched upon above, that rule would appear to allow the senior qualified employee to claim a temporary vacancy, without any limitation.

For the foregoing reasons the grievance is allowed. As the Company failed to provide information to Mr. Talbot with respect to the work opportunity at Quebec City, I deem it appropriate to direct his full compensation for all wages and benefits lost. I retain jurisdiction in the event of any further dispute between the parties with respect to the implementation of this award.

Signed at Toronto, March 5, 1997