IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ( The Company ) and

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY ( The Company ) and CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY OPERATING UNIONS (B.L.E.) ( The Union ) RE: CLOSING OF HAMILTON TERMINAL Arbitrator: Michel G. Picher Appearances for the Company : John Coleman -Counsel Al Heft -Manager, Labour Relations Greg Search -Asst. Manager, Labour Relations John Kelly -Manager, Intermodal Operations Patti Marquis -Labour Relations Officer Stu Thomas -Asst. Superintendent Appearances for the Union: J. Craig Morrison -Counsel Richard Dyon -General Chairman, B.L.E. A hearing in this matter was held in Toronto on September 22 And in Montreal on September 26, 1997

2 2 AWARD This arbitration arises pursuant to Article 78 of Collective Agreement 1.1, in respect of the decision of the Company to convey by lease a segment of road and related spurs on the Hagersville Subdivision, the Oakville Subdivision and the Grimsby Subdivision, resulting in the closure of Hamilton as a home terminal effective December 15, The parties have been unable to fully agree on measures to minimize the adverse impact of the material change in question on the employees affected. The transactions in question, and the issues initially in dispute before the Arbitrator are related in the Company s ex parte statement of issue, which reads as follows: On April 25, 1997, the company served notice to the Union pursuant to Article 78 of Agreement 1.1, regarding the Company s decision to convey the line between Brantford and Nanticoke (Hagersville subdivision including the Buford Spur), formerly effective August 30, 1997, and subsequently rescheduled for September 20, On June 12, 1997, the Company served a second notice to the Union pursuant to Article 78 of Agreement 1.1, regarding the Company s decision to convey the Northern and Northwestern (N&NW) Spur, between Stuart Street Yard (Oakville Subdivision) and Parkdale Yard (Grimsby Subdivision), resulting in the closure of Hamilton as a home station/terminal effective December 15, Meetings and discussions between the parties to negotiate a settlement regarding the issue of benefits to be provided those employees adversely affected, resulted in no agreement being reached. Following the cessation of negotiations, the issues in dispute were referred to a Board of Review for mediation. Subsequently, the Board of Review was unable to arrive at a joint recommendation for settlement, but did recommend that the parties reconvene one more time in an effort to reach an understanding on as many issues as possible, and subsequently determine the remaining issues to be arbitrated. In this regard, the parties met one more time on August 26, 1997, settled a number of issues with regards to maintenance of earnings and familiarization / training. The following issues have been submitted as remaining in dispute: 1. Early retirement credits in the amount of the total number of employees affected by the notice. 2. Requirement to protect work.

3 3 Company s ability to direct employees to protect work at Hamilton in the interim and subsequently at Aldershot, and resources and processes. Company s ability to reassign surplus employees where required. 3. Disposition of two (2) current LCS (Belt Pack) credits at Hamilton. 4. Relocation benefits as follows: I. $45,000 lump sum payment to employees relocating to Toronto South sell and buy. II., $35,000 lump sum payment to employees relocating to Toronto South no move necessary. III $25,000 lump sum payment to employees relocating to any other location no move necessary. ** Lump sum payments may be paid in installments over a 1, 2, or 3 year period, or deposited into a self-directed RSP. 5. Benefit eligibility for two (2) employees currently absent on medical leave. 6. Deadhead / Travel Agreement. I. 3 hrs. each way for spare work in Aldershot. II. 4 hrs. each way for spare work in Hamilton. It is recognized that a mutual agreement could not be reached between the parties, and it was agreed that the issues outstanding would be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 78.4 of Agreement 1.1. At the conclusion of the hearing the Arbitrator indicated to the parties that this appeared to be an appropriate case for further negotiation and, if possible, resolution by agreement. Thereafter the parties did meet and attempted to negotiate further. Their efforts were successful in respect of three issues: the requirement to protect work, the eligibility of inactive employees, and the transfer to Toronto South Terminal of some two existing Belt Pack retirement credits. The only issues outstanding for the purposes of this award, therefore are relocation benefits, retirement credits, and a travel arrangement. All three of the issues in dispute are issues which were resolved between the Company and the United Transportation Union the branch of the council which represents conductors and trainpersons. The terms upon which those issues have been settled are reflected in an award of the Arbitrator issued under the

4 4 same date as this award, save for the issue of travel arrangements which were previously agreed between the Company and the U.T.U. and did not come on as an issue to be resolved by the Arbitrator. The obvious issue, which arises at the outset, is whether there is any reasonable basis upon which to make distinctions between the employees represented by the Union in the instant case, and their running trades colleagues represented by the United Transportation Union. The Arbitrator is at a loss to see any meaningful difference, insofar as the adverse impact of the Hamilton closure on all of these employees is concerned. As in the case of the conductors and trainpersons, the locomotive engineers previously home-terminated at Hamilton are urgently needed for Company service at the Toronto South Terminal, as well as at the terminals of Sarnia, Oshawa, Hornpayne and London. For the reasons related in the award which issued in respect of the employees represented by the U.T.U., the Arbitrator is of the view that, on the one hand, the initial position of the Company which would have required employees to relocate to Toronto South, regardless of their prior seniority and displacement rights, should not be accepted. Similarly, however, I am not of the view, as argued by the Brotherhood, that it is appropriate to award benefits, in particular relocation benefits, to employees who choose to relocate to terminals where their services are not needed, and where their presence would, albeit indirectly, add to the furlough board burden of the Company. I am satisfied that the appropriate balance of interests in this case, as in the U.T.U. case, is to fashion a set of incentives which will provide appropriate compensation to employees who declare to those locations where their services are most needed. Further, given that there is a need for the services of the locomotive engineers previously employed at Hamilton, and therefore no real surplus of employees when regard is had to the need at other locations, there is not an appropriate case for the awarding of retirement credits. As noted above, the Company and the U.T.U. have agreed on a travel arrangement. In my view it would be inappropriate to award any different arrangement in respect of the locomotive engineers who will be traveling as part of the same crews, and I can see no justification for doing so. I therefore award that employees required to report to Aldershot or going off duty at that location, be paid two hours travel time, each way. With respect to relocation benefits, for the reasons touched upon above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to direct the same relocation benefits as are found in the award issued on this same date in respect of the dispute between the company and the U.T.U. I therefore award the same provisions as are found at pp.5-7 of that award, which read as follows: The Arbitrator directs that relocation benefits be made available to employees who declare to Toronto South and who live outside the westernmost boundary of Burlington and relocate to a location east of that boundary line. In that

5 5 circumstance an employee who is a home-owner who sells and buys a home shall be entitled to a lump sum payment of $40,000 in lieu of all relocation benefits. A renter in the same circumstance shall be entitled to a lump sum payment of $15,000. Such lump sum payments shall be conditional on the employee being compelled, his or her seniority allowing, to protect work at Toronto South for not less than three years from the date the employee declares. Secondly, should an employee choose to relocate to one of the following alternative locations in the Great Lakes District, namely Sarnia, Oshawa, Hornepayne or London, they shall likewise be entitled to a lump sum, without any time limit. For home owners who buy and sell a home the lump sum payment shall be $20,000 and for renters the lump sum payment shall be $8,000. For the purposes of clarity, employees who choose to relocate to any other terminal shall have no benefits payable in relation to their relocation. Employees seeking the benefit of the lump sum payments for relocation to Toronto south or the four alternative locations must declare their location intention in writing by November 21, Similarly, employees electing to relocate to any other terminal must likewise declare their location intention in writing by November 21, Employees who do not relocate shall be eligible for a commuter allowance if they take work in Toronto South, in the amount of $ for up to three years, save that employees who are assigned to Oakville and Aldershot shall be eligible for a commuter allowance of $ a month for up to three years. An employee in receipt of the commuter allowance for a period of six months shall be deemed to have elected not to relocate and shall be no longer eligible for the relocation benefits described above. The Arbitrator directs that inactive employees shall be eligible for the benefits contained within this award, upon their return to full-time employment with the Company. Such employees must, nevertheless, declare their future relocation intention in writing, as of November 21, The Arbitrator also directs that during the transition period current Hamilton employees shall cover assignments at Oakville and Aldershot on a senior may junior must basis for a period of four months beyond December 15, At the expiry of the four-month period, employees who were forced to protect work at Oakville and Aldershot shall be released, and shall revert to their rights under this award. Any commuter allowance which they have received to that date shall be deemed received for the purposes of the six-month period beyond which they forfeit their ability to opt for relocation lump sums. I retain jurisdiction in the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the interpretation or implementation of this award.

6 6 Dated at Toronto this 10 th day of October, Michael G. Picher, Arbitrator