CROA Decision rendered

Last week on November 9th, we took a case to CROA which had been outstanding since 1997.

The case involved the company bulletinning shifts with Thursday and Friday as rest days, a violation of article 5.1 of Collective Agreement 41. As you will no doubt recall, in 1997 there was no senior may/ junior must and many of our members had to bid these shifts or face a loss of seniority.

The company was looking for 7 day coverage to avoid the payment of overtime, so they disrupted the lives of their loyal employees and shoved them on night shifts with mid week rest days, in a cavalier and callous manner.

I remember this grievance, as I was the General Chairman at the time and I initiated it. I remember that prior to grieving it, I phoned the company and asked that they re-consider, as I saw it as a clear violation and as a quality of life issue. I was told at the time that my concerns would not affect their decision and that I should grieve it if I didn't agree with them. I was told this by both Labour Relations and Engineering.

Well, we did grieve it and after 8 years (a time frame that is inexcusable), they have been found at fault and ordered to pay compensation. It would seem that the arbitrator did not buy into the testimony of the company's expert "witness". I will give Mister Moran, the LR officer arguing the case, credit. He did a very professional job, well researched the case law and argued as best he could with the flimsy evidence given him by Engineering.

I believe that this decision gives us some clear language on the changing of rest days and re-inforces previous awards. It is especially good now that the company is planning to try to take away Sunday as a rest day for the TP& E crews this year. A few months ago, they told me that if the Union does not agree to their proposal, then they may just claim that it is an "operational requirement" and do it anyway. I reminded them of the injunction (for the exact same issue) that we won on the Pacific Region in 1995 and assured them that we would be more than willing to take that route again, and now that we are armed with this award, they may back off on their threat.

In December, we are taking to CROA, the issue of the interpretation of the "senior may/ junior must" rules in conjunction with an employee's options when their temporary position concludes. The language is clear, however the company has decided to test this one as well. They are looking for things, through the arbitration process, that they could not get in bargaining.

They are taking a position that is clearly in total opposition of the language and of their earlier position and practice. I have been told by LR Manager Ed MacIsaac that John Kruk agreed with their interpretation and that his intent when they wrote the language was the same as the company's (even though what is written is the opposite of what the company's position is now). LR Manager Scott Seeney wrote in the step 2 grievance response that "..the parties..." intended for the article to be interpreted the way the company is now interpreting it. "The parties" are the former Union and the company.

I have talked to former System Federation General Chairman John Kruk on this matter. He vehemently denies ever agreeing with the company's current position. As a matter of fact he states that he was the one who wrote the article in question, that he discussed it with MacIsaac and that Ed MacIsaac agreed with it and printed it in the collective agreeement...verbatim!!

The language states clearly that an employee may exercise their seniority (become a free agent) at the time of conclusion, or displacement from, a temporary position "over or under 45 days". However, regardless of what the language states (and has stated for the two and a half years that it has been in the Collective Agreement and the five years since it was written) the company is saying that this only applies to "bulletined positions" even though the language does not say this anywhere in the "senior may/ junior must" rules.

As you are the people out there living by the Collective Agreement and by the practice, you know the manner in which this article has been applied. Up untill just under a year ago (coincidentally this was around the same time during the Collective Agreement re-write that the company decided that they wanted to change the intent of the language), everyone that we have been able to find who finished a temporary appointment and decided to exercise, was allowed to. There haven't been that many, because naturally most people go back to their preferred position which is usually the one they came from.

The company wants to argue intent. They say that the intent was to interpret it their way. Now, I think that the author of an article surely knows what he meant when he wrote the article. And John Kruk (the author of the article) says that it means exactly what it says, not what the company is now stating. John Kruk states that it was his intention and that the language clearly states, that an employee can exercise his seniority at the conclusion of any temporary position, regardless of the duration and regardless of whether it was bulletined or appointed. As I was a full time officer of the CSF at the time that this article was written, I can also state unequivocably that it was the Union's intention that an employee would become a "free agent" at the conclusion of any temporary, under the "senior may/ junior must" rules as printed in the Collective Agreement.

John even told me that he explained this to Ed MacIsaac over two months ago (well before the step two response) when MacIsaac phoned John at home trying to win him over to the company's side, a move that rates pretty low in my books. John Kruk told him then, once again, what his interpretation, and the intent of the article, was and yet the company goes ahead a few weeks later and writes the opposite in their step 2 response.

I know that you all realize why its hard to trust in the word of the company, especially looking at all the broken committments, violations of the wage agreement and the Canada Labour Codes, and their cavalier attitude towards your rights and needs. We have tried to believe them and we have tried to get a proper working relationship but I thought you should know that this position they have taken on an already agreed upon article, clearly defined in the language of the collective agreement, coupled with the inconsistencies of Mr. MacIsaac's changing positions, and credibility, in his discussions with me, have seriously weakened, if not destroyed, the already fragile relationship we had with them. We will still try to repair the damage they do, but that is all we can do...try.

Brothers and Sisters, we bargain in good faith with the company. Our word is our bond. We will tolerate no less from any company.

Is this issue as important as I have painted it? Win or lose this case, most of our members will, as stated earlier, go back to their preferred positions anyways. But this issue goes much deeper than that. This is an issue of principle. If we, as a Union, give up on our principles then we are no better than those who put greed above what is right, productivity above safety or profits above their word. This issue strikes at the very foundation of "good faith " and at the integral trust, needed between two parties at bargaining. Yes it is important, probably much more important than I could ever describe it.

Well, I think that you get my point. Thanks again for your support. With you behind us, we can't help but win.

TEAMSTER UNITY + TEAMSTER PRIDE = TEAMSTER STRENGTH.

Fraternally yours,

Bill Brehl
President
TCRC MWED