ARTICLE 51 “REST” – TIED UP EN-ROUTE

During the negotiations of Article 51 the Company (with Union input) provided a list of questions and answers as to application. The letter is referred to as the “January 15th, 1986 letter” and has been memorialized at arbitration.

Therein the following question was asked;

“Q. If Trainmen are replaced and there is sufficient time to deadhead them either to the point for which ordered or to the home terminal (such point to be at the discretion of the Company) before rest booked is due to commence, can they be provided accommodations?

A. No. Trainmen will generally be provided accommodations only in one of two situation: first, if they are not replaced and are, therefore, required to handle the train to the objective terminal when the rest period has expired: and, second when they are replaced but cannot be deadheaded to the point where they will be required by the time rest booked is due to commence.”

My View:

When crews (who gave rest notice) are being replaced or are not required to operate their train once rest has expired, must be deadheaded to the objective terminal if there is sufficient time to do so before rest is due to commence. It is not the Company’s option to hold employee’s (e.g. for punishment for booking rest) in accommodations en-route in these circumstances if the employee can be moved to the destination terminal.

In such case it would be a violation of the Collective Agreement and, in my view, the Remedy Provision may be applicable (a “blatant violation”).

Rex Beatty