SHP – 501

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

(the “Company”)

AND

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION OF CANADA (CAW-CANADA), LOCAL 101

(the “Union”)

GRIEVANCE RE PIPEFITTER PERFORMING BOILERMAKER’S WORK

SOLE ARBITRATOR: Vincent L. Ready

There appeared on behalf of the Company:

John Bate

And on behalf of the Union:

Brian McDonagh

A hearing in this matter was held at Vancouver, B.C., September 28, 1999.

AWARD

The issue giving rise to this dispute concerns an alleged violation of Rule 52D and 52.2D whereby the Employer utilized a Pipefitter to perform Boilermaker’s work.

On May 12, 1997, the Employer assigned a Pipefitter to annual cleaning, inspection and repair of the boilers in the Power Plant at Weston Shops. In the past, this work has always been Boilermakers’ work.

The Union filed a grievance alleging a violation of Rules 52D and 52.2D, which outline Boilermaker work.

It is the position of the Union that the Company violated these provisions when it assigned work related to the annual cleanup and inspection of the boilers in the power plant to a Pipefitter. The Union asks for such a ruling and that compensation be awarded to the Boilermakers affected.

It is the position of the Company that, due to reduced requirements of repairs and the significant reduction in scale build up, it only assigned a Pipefitter to the inspection of the boilers. This involved the removal of external pipes and internal baffle plates to allow visual inspection of the water tubes. The removal of the baffle plates, or guards, is deemed to be incidental work that could have been completed within a short period of time and work that was within the job duties of Pipefitters.

Pipefitter work is identified within Rule 52.2F, which states in part:

Pipefitters work shall consist of pipefitting in shops, yards and buildings, power houses, locomotives (and piping carrying steam, air, oil, gas, water (and disconnecting all pipe work by whatever process (

In the event, through the visual inspection, damaged tubes were found that required repairs, the Employer submitted that it was prepared to assign a Boilermaker to make the repairs as per past practice.

Finally, the Employer argues that, as a result of its decision, no one within the Boilermaker classification was adversely affected by way of loss of wages or denial of an opportunity to work during the annual shutdown period. All the Boilermakers working were assigned to specific jobs within the plant at the time in question.

DECISION

The provisions of the Collective Agreement touching on the issues in dispute are Rules 52D, 52.2D, 52.2F and 55.2.

In my view this grievance succeeds for the following reasons.

First, the Employer asserts that it is incidental work. The Union disagrees with that characterization because the Employer has neither identified it as such pursuant to Rule 55 (Incidental Work) nor has the Employer notified the Union that it is incidental work. This is an integral requirement of Rule 55 of the Collective Agreement.

In my view, the Employer cannot have it both ways in this case. It cannot argue that the work in question is incidental without first of all meeting the requirements of Rule 55.

Consequently, I find that there has been, in the circumstances of this case, a violation of the Collective Agreement. However, with respect to compensation, no successful claim has been made. As I understand the submissions, no employee lost wages as a result of the assignment of work in these circumstances. Thus, I award no compensation for lost time.

In the result, the grievance succeeds in part, as stated above.

It is so awarded.

DATED AT VANCOUVER in the Province of British Columbia this 29th day of October, 1999.

(signed) VINCENT L. READY

ARBITRATOR