Arbitrations

2011-02 Movement of Metal & Debris from Cargo at Pacific Coast Terminals

Issue: Whether or not the work assigned by PCT management to millwrights was work that should in fact be carried out by a Labourer.

The disputed work involved the searching of the sulphur on the belt for metal debris after the metal detectors on the belt were triggered. In some circumstances metal was found, in other circumstances it was a false reading or it was a metal detector issue. It was the Association and PCT’s view that the millwright was only prevented from “handling or moving cargo” and this work was neither. In this instance the millwright was fixing the fault by removing debris while the belts were locked out and incapable of production. In the alternate, the Association and PCT suggested that the work was not of such a quantity and that it would be reasonable to hire a labourer, as during the preceding year less than 5.5 hours of this work had been conducted and infrastructure was being put into place to decrease that number further. The Union’s view was that this was production work and therefore the millwright was prevented from performing it. The Union also suggested that the work, shoveling of cargo, was labouring work and the Collective Agreement prevented the moving of rated workers to such work. The Union sought an order from the Arbitrator ordering the employment of a production labourer in the event there was a metal detector fault.

Decision: The Arbitrator found that the work in question was labouring work. The Arbitrator also found that there was an issue about the “degree of use” and he thus concluded that the quantity or work was "de minimus”. Therefore, despite the fact that the work was labouring he did not order the employment of a labourer. Instead he ordered that when a labourer was on site they were to do the work but when there was no labourer on the site PCT could assign the work to a millwright.

2011-01 Refusal to Operate the Peco at Richardson International

Issue: The dispute arose at Richardson International Grain Terminal in North Vancouver where Association member DP World was the Stevedoring Company responsible for loading the vessel. Longshore workers had ceased work associated with the operation of the Peco equipment, which is used by wheat specialty workers loading the ship.
                       
The Union’s issue was that, pursuant to Article 7.03 and Article 8, workers had ceased work in accordance with their Collective Agreement right due to not being trained on the emergency escape and rescue cradle, specifically for not having operated the device.

The Association’s assertion was that ILWU members were in violation of Article 7.01 for ceasing work and that they ought to be ordered to cease and desist illegal activity and be ordered to return to work.

Decision: The Association was successful in the Arbitration – Mr. Keras ruled the following:

"In the instant case I am not able to conclude that the disputed operation of the Peco without the DBI Sala 4.0 training is “potentially” a situation which requires that “employees be immediately protected” in order to prevent a “probable” injury or illness from occurring.”

“I don’t believe workers will endanger their health safety by operating the Peco without having the DBI Sala 4.2 decent training. I say that based on the HRSD Canada Definition of “danger” and the evidence of both witnesses.”

The result was that the workers were to cease their refusal and instructed to return to work immediately.

2010-06 Kinder Morgan work related to "Hatch Covers" on MCP Troodos

Issue:The Union’s issue was that Kinder Morgan was in violation of Article 20 of the Collective Agreement because the crew members of the MCP Troodos ship were performing work related to the movement "hatch covers" when unloading the vessel. The Union asserted and sought an order that the Company use Local 500 members to do the work. In short, the Union's position was that since there was no specific proviso in the Agreement to except this work from being performed by its members, it should be performed by them.
                       
The Association’s response was that the disputed work was covered by the exception set out in Article 20 - DEEPSEA SHIP WORK, 20.01.2 (a) which allows crew members, at the option of the vessel, to perform such work where there are " no, or an insufficient number of suitable employees (Union members) working aboard the vessel".

In the alternative, the Association argued that the Union was estopped in this situation because this issue had arisen on several other occasions, and the Union had not pursued the issue on any of those occasions.

Decision: The Arbitrator concluded that the work here could have and should have been performed by bargain unit employees. However, with respect to the alternate estoppel argument, the Arbitrator was persuaded. The union was estopped in relation to the remedy sought in this case but that the estoppel would terminate with the circumstances of this case and that Kinder Morgan would now be subject to the terms and application of the Collective Agreement.

2010-05 - BCMEA Contacting of Casuals

Issue: The BCMEA claimed that the ILWU sent out a bulletin to casuals that breached the order of Summary Disposition 2010-03. The BCMEA believed that the particulars of this bulletin constituted a concerted action and harassment. The BCMEA alleged that these actions were a breach of Article 9 and the Association’s right to manage.
                       
The Union’s position was that its actions; did not disrupt dispatch, were not in violation of Summary Disposition 2010-03, did not violate the terms of the Collective Agreement and that the Job Arbitrator did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the internal communications of the Union.

Decision: Arbitrator Keras ruled that the Union “did encourage that action to the extent of interfering with the Association’s right”. Arbitrator Keras also stated that “if the Union wishes to encourage individuals to notify the Association that such individuals do not want to receive the Association’s automated messages such notification must include a clear and unambiguous acknowledgement of the Association’s right of contact and such acknowledgement must be in a manner consistent with SD 2010-03.”

2010-04: Preliminary Matter – Arbitral Jurisdiction

Issue: BCMEA claimed the ILWU engaged in conduct that violates Summary Disposition 2010-03 (BCMEA's right to contact casuals to advise of work opportunity) which flows from Article 9 (Dispatch) of the Collective Agreement.
                       
The Union, however, claimed the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to hear the Association's issue claiming, "that the Job Arbitrator did not have a retained jurisdiction and as a result was functus officio".

Decision: The Job Arbitrator agreed that he was functus, however, he went on to say the Association's issue was a separate issue which may be adjudicated on its own merits.

As a result, the Union’s preliminary matter was dismissed. A hearing into the merits of the BCMEA's issue has been scheduled for September 17, 2010.

2010-03 BCMEA & ILWU

The Association was successful in a recent arbitration decision regarding the Association’s right to communicate directly with casuals to inform them of increased work opportunity and to encourage them to make themselves available for increased work opportunity.

Issue: The Union described the issue as a violation of Article 9 entitled Dispatch and Control of the Workforce of the Collective Agreement. The Union claimed the alleged violation arose when on July 29, 2010 the BCMEA used an automated calling service to telephone casuals from Local 500 and Local 502 with a pre-recorded broadcast message which advised of increased work opportunity on the BC Day long weekend and that they should contact the work information number (a pre-recorded message that provided a detailed overview of the work opportunity) for further details.

For its part, the BCMEA stated that the calling of Casuals to advise of increased work opportunity was within its rights and was done to maximize the turn out at Dispatch so there would be no shortage of labour as there had recently been a number of occasions where the Union had been unable to fulfill BCMEA Member Company labour requirements.

Decision: Arbitrator Keras said that there was “no specific Collective Agreement bar was pointed to which prevents the Association from telephoning all casuals of Local 502 and advising them of a heavy work expectation and suggesting or encouraging them to enquire about despatch”.

He also stated that, “The Union has no greater right to talk to casuals than the Association, subject of course to the specific terms of the Collective Agreement, such as Article 9”.

2010-02: Grieg Star-Western Stevedoring & ILWU

Issue: The Union’s issue was that Western Stevedoring and Grieg Star were in violation of Article 20 of the Collective Agreement because the crew members of a Grieg Star ship were performing work related to the movement and placement of "tween decks" or "pontoons". The Union sought an order that the employer use Local 500 members to do the work. In short, the Union's position was that since there was no specific provision in the Agreement to except this work from being performed by its members, it should be performed by union members.
The Association’s response was that the disputed work was covered by the exceptions set out in Article 20 - DEEPSEA SHIP WORK. Article 20.01 2. (d) allows crew members, at the option of the vessel, to perform such work. In effect the reference to "special hatch covers" captured these structures. A further argument was advanced that this work was "special" and was therefore covered by that exception in the Article. In the alternative the Association argued that there was ambiguity on the face of the Agreement and therefore, past practice should be used to establish that only crew members at Grieg Star had performed this in the past.
                       
Decision: Arbitrator Cuddington was persuaded by the Association's arguments with regards to tween decks and or pontoons as "special" and that they are not handled normally by union members in this operation and with this company. The key feature he found to be special was the manual “dogs” vs. the hydraulic ones (the dogs support the pontoons). He further went on to say that he was satisfied that, in the present circumstances, that the work in question is work that has been performed by crew members and could continue to be at the discretion of the company.
Arbitrator Cuddington found that the agreement is ambiguous on this issue and therefore the matter was determined by the past practice.
The result was that the Union’s case did not succeed.

2010-01 Preliminary Matter - Univar Truck Rack

Issue: The Union’s issue was described in a February 4, 2010 pay claim letter to the Association from Local 500 Vice President, Mr. Mike Rondpré, as outside drivers coming into Univar and loading their trucks with Ethanol, which the Union alleged was Collective Agreement work.
                       
Decision: The Association raised a preliminary matter asserting that the job arbitrator was without jurisdiction based on its argument that the same matter had been previously heard and decided; therefore the doctrine of res judicata applies. The Association referred to BC Maritime Employers Association and International Longshore and Warehouse Union – Canada, Summary Disposition 2009 – 07 dated July 14, 2009 which was with respect to the Kinder Morgan truck rack operation.

Arbitrator Keras concluded the following:

In my view the differences between the evidence in the Kinder Morgan case and the evidence in the Univar preliminary matter hearing coupled with the precision required for a de minimis conclusion in the Univar circumstances are sufficient to require a hearing on the merits. The issues are not “precisely the same”. A de minimis finding must be based on a precise measurement. In the result I find that, based on a careful review of the evidence and the submissions of the Parties, the differences between the Kinder Morgan case and the instant preliminary matter coupled with the precision associated with a de minimis finding in these particular circumstances are sufficient to allow a hearing on the merits of the Union’s Univar pay claim.

2010 Industry Arbitration - Steel Dispatch

Issue:

In response to an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) issued by HRSDC to one of the Association’s members a casual steel dispatch process was implemented in Local 500. This process was designed to ensure only those casuals qualified to the specific hazards of steel work were being dispatched. The Union took issue with the implementation of the process and in response the Association filed a grievance on the Union’s interpretation of the Agreement in regards to the determination of a competent workforce, the requirement to train and the modification of the dispatch process.
                       
Decision:

The Arbitrator, Robert Pekeles, found the following:

1. An impasse between the parties is not an option under the Canada Labour Code and that the Association in these circumstances must act;

2. The Association is only required to train when necessary and therefore does not have to train everyone that wants it;

3. Once the determination of what constitutes a qualified workforce on steel is made then a priority dispatch of those holding the qualification is appropriate;

4. When establishing competence, the parties should have a definition and not deal with it anecdotally on a person by person basis;

5. The parties were directed to meet expeditiously to jointly make determinations set out in Article 9.2 (a) and 9.1; and

6. If the parties, despite their best efforts, were unable to reach a joint determination on the matters then any issue(s) remaining in dispute can ultimately be referred back to the Arbitrator for resolution.

2009-09 Kinder Morgan Cleaning Conveying Equipment & Tunnels

Issue: Whether the use of high level pressure washers (12,000 PSI) to clean conveyor systems in the sulpher tunnels at Kinder Morgan was work captured by the ILWU - Canada Collective Agreement, specifically 26.01(9) “Regular Maintenance”. The high level pressure washing in this instance was done by outside contractors. It was agreed that Longshore do general cleanup within the tunnels however they have never used high level pressure washers, which was required to remove the crude and sulpher deposits that were imbedded on the conveyer system structure.
                       
The union’s position was that the work being performed by the contractor’s was regular maintenance work that was captured under the Regular Maintenance provision (26.01(9)) of the ILWU – Canada Collective Agreement and that they should be made whole as a result.

The Association’s position was that the work performed with high level pressure washers was “specialty type work” that has been done exclusively by non bargaining unit personnel and that as a result fell outside the scope of the Collective Agreement. Additionally, the Association put forward that there were no qualified jointly rated employees to perform the specialized work.

Decision: The Arbitrator found the cleaning of the tunnels and or conveyer systems was regular maintenance work pursuant to the meaning of article 25.01(9) however he found that the union did not have qualified jointly rated employees immediately available to perform the work in question. The matter was referred back to the parties to find a resolution via article 8 (training) or some other agreed to solution.

2009-08 Kinder Morgan Berth 5 Treatment Plant Failure

Issue: Whether a the work of replacing piping at the Kinder Morgan treatment plant at Berth 5 was Regular Maintenance Work and therefore the jurisdiction of Local 500 members. It was the position of the Association that the disputed work was not regular maintenance work as there had never been a failure of this size or magnitude before and the work was therefore an exception to the regular maintenance provisions of the Collective Agreement as it was not “regular”, “normal” or “usual”. The Union on the other hand asserted that this was the type of work often done by Local 500 members and it was their job to replace pipes as part of the repair and upkeep of the system.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator concluded that the work in question was work of Local 500 members as it fit the Arbitrator McKee regular maintenance definition, “periodic, recurrent, routine, usual, normal and ordinary”. Further he found that the replacing of elbows and pipes was “maintenance” as it is part of the “repair” and “upkeep” of the treatment plant system, again satisfying the Arbitrator McKee regular maintenance definition. As such he ruled that Local 500 plumbers be assigned to the work as it was regular maintenance as described in Article 26.01.9.

2009-07 Kinder Morgan - Truck Rack Fuel Loading Operation

Issue: Whether or not the loading of fuel to trucks at Kinder Morgan was ILWU work.
                       
Decision: The Association argued that the work was not ILWU on three planks: 1. De minimis non curat lex principle - the disputed work was minimal. 2. 23.01(a) Safety and 3. The fuel once discharged from the barge had been co-blended in the tank farm and therefore was no longer cargo, but "goods" and outside the scope of the Agreement. The Job Arbitrator found that the work was within the scope of ILWU but that the Association's de minimis argument succeeds.

2009-06 Cerescorp - Shorepower

Issue: Whether the operation and ongoing maintenance of the newly installed shore power system was work captured by the ILWU Collective Agreement. At the commencement of the hearing Association raised a preliminary issue that the work was not work under the care and control of an Association member. The Union position was that the work was work under the control of Cerescorp. It was decided that the hearing would be bifurcated for the purpose of hearing the preliminary matter first and the carry on to the merits of the case should it be required.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator concluded that the work in question was not under the control of Cerescorp. Instead he decided that Cochran Electrical, the electrical contractor, had in fact acquired that contract from Port Metro Vancouver and since they are not a member of the Association the work cannot be found to fall under the jurisdiction of the Collective Agreement. The decision further confirmed that Cerescorp and PMV have an “arms length” business relationship and that there is no corporate connection. Finally the Arbitrator found that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of Cerescorp and it instead found that Cerescorp simply exercised its rights pursuant to the commercial agreement.

2009-05 PCT - Staffing levels for the bulk liquid rail car unloading

Issue: Whether PCT was able to reduce the manning on the bulk liquid rail car unloading based on a “material change”, the installation of a new overhead walkway system. It was the position of the Association that this walkway reduced the actual amount of work required of the workers and therefore a reduction in the required workforce was appropriate. The Union’s position was that the change did not yield any measureable reductions and was not a “material change” therefore the manning outlined in Black Book Document 10 and 10A should be maintained.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator decided that the installation of the overhead walkway was not a material change and therefore the Employer was not entitled to deviate from the manning arrangements contained in Black Book document 10 and 10A. The Arbitrator found that the onus was on the Association to show that there was a “material change in the circumstances” compared to the “then existing circumstances”. In this case it was determined that a clear and measureable reduction in work was required and that the Association had not discharged its obligations on this point. The Arbitrator found that the installation of the walkway did not satisfiy this requirement as the work operation in general had not changed and that the site visit was the preferred evidence, over the Employers video evidence. It was found that this site visit and work demonstration by the Union showed that the time required was unchanged.

2009-04 Kinder Morgan Movement of Cargo and Union BA denied access to the site

Issue: Whether work for the new liquid bulk tank system for diesel / jet fuel service at Kinder Morgan was commissioning and outside of the scope of Article 1.03 of the Collective Agreement and whether the employer violated Article 1.06 and 7.02 by denying access to the union representative to view the operations.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator found that there was no violation of Article 7.02 but that the employer did not give Article 1.06 due consideration and reminded the Parties of the responsibilities that flow from that Article.

The Job Arbitrator went on to find that the discharge of fuel for the new diesel / jet fuel service was commissioning and fit under Article 26.01.9 so could be performed outside the Collective Agreement.

2009-03 Preliminary Matter - Arbitral Jurisprudence; Kinder Morgan Movement of Cargo

Issue: Preliminary Matter - Arbitral Jurisprudence. The union's issue was that Kinder Morgan Vancouver Wharves was in violation of Article 1.03 and Article 1.05 for not using longshore labour in the new fuel operation, while the employer argued that the work being done was commissioning and that the work was not under the control of Vancouver Wharves Terminal, but that until the commissioning was complete the new liquid bulk tanks system for diesel / jet service was under the control of Kinder Morgan's head office in Calgary and therefore was not within the jurisdiction of the Job Arbitrator.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator found that no documentary evidence was proffered which shows a legal corporate distinction between Kinder Morgan Canada and Kinder Morgan Vancouver Wharves Terminal and therefore the dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Job Arbitrator to hear the merits of the case.

2009-02 DP World Gang Transfer Refusal

Issue:Whether a gang or persons in the gang may be moved to another ship or dock based upon the wording of Article 24.03.1 of the Collective Agreement where an employer has already extended the shift pursuant to Article 21.04 for the loading of the same ship and whether the Union violated Article 7.01 by refusing to transfer a gang from one vessel to another. 

The Mol Strength needed to expeditiously finish loading so that the berth could be vacated for another, incoming, vessel. In order to complete the work DP World first tried to obtain an additional (four hour) extension which was refused. They then attempted to transfer one gang from a Westwood vessel but the union refused the transfer.

The Association sought a declaration that the Union was in violation of article 7.01 by refusing to work as directed. The Union argued that they were not in violation of Article 7.01, and that DP World could not transfer a gang from a Westwood vessel to the Mol Strength after having already directed the graveyard shift to work one hour of overtime as per Article 21.04. The Union further stated that because the Employer had used the one-hour extension provision in Article 21.04, additional manning of the Mol Strength must be in accordance with Black Book Document 43A. The Association argued that the Union should have followed the principle of ‘work now, grieve later’ instead of refusing the transfer.

Decision:The arbitrator ruled that, based on the facts presented to him, after an extension as per Article 21.04 was utilized, a gang cannot be moved as per Article 24.03.1. Of note, the arbitrator did state with regard to this ruling that: “the conclusion in this case is with respect to the particular circumstances as outlined at the hearing and as such would not necessarily apply to all possible interpretations of the relevant clause(s) of the Collective Agreement.”

The arbitrator did rule in the Association’s favour, stating that the Union violated Article 7.01, stating that “…there is nothing in the circumstances of this case that could not have been remedied through the grievance procedure.” He found that the Union should have worked first and grieved later.

2009-01 Kinder Morgan - Vacuum Truck Operations

Issue: Whether the employer's decision to use a contracted vacuum truck and operator to clear ponds was ILWU work.
                       
Decision: The parties reached an agreement that Kinder Morgan will work with Local 500 to develop and implement a safe work procedure for the ILWU operation of the hose of the vacuum truck and that such agreement will not set a precedent for the Union or the Association nor will it prejudice the Union or the Association with respect to vacuum truck operation issues.

2009 Foreman Layoff Grievance

Issue: Whether the lay-offs of DPW container foremen was in violation of Article 18 as DPW stevedoring foremen who had less seniority remained employed. The Union claimed that the DPW container foremen were qualified to work at stevedoring and should have been put to work as a stevedoring foreman and the junior stevedoring foremen should have been laid off instead.
                       
Decision: The grievance was dismissed. The arbitrator concluded that considerable discretion is retained by the Company and therefore may lay off employees, notwithstanding seniority, good faith consideration of the qualifications of the foreman, the requirements of the company and company service. Further, there is nothing in Article 18 which would compel the company to take extraordinary measures as suggested by the Union, to move foremen from one sector to the other in order to ensure the most junior are laid off.

2009 Foreman - Consolidation of Dispatchers

Issue: Whether Terminal Systems Inc. was able to consolidate their dispatch function at the Deltaport facility and at the same time make adjustments to their dispatchers’ schedules of work. Prior to the consolidation the dispatch function was being performed at two locations, Deltaport and Vanterm. Further the schedules of work were modified with the schedules post consolidation being four on four off with shifts of eleven or eleven and a half hours. The schedules when averaged over a calendar quarter, as provided in the Supplemental Agreement, were forty hours per week.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator found that the consolidation of the dispatch function was not a violation of the Supplemental Agreement. Specifically in Article 3 it states that the Company had the right to determine the number and location of dispatch operations. The Arbitrator did however find that the schedules of work implement as part of the consolidation were in violation of the Canada Labour Code. Section 170 (1) of the Canada Labour Code requires that there be an agreement in writing between the parties should the employer wish to modify a work schedule under which the standard hours of work (eight hours per day) are exceed. In this instance the Arbitrator found that the language of Article 21 (1) was not specific enough to meet such a requirement. In the end it was confirmed that the employer has the right to modify the work schedules but that there was no agreement between the parties which would permit schedules of greater duration than ten hours (this being the existing agreed upon duration of some several of the pre-consolidation shifts).

 Supplementary award dated August 18, 2010

2008-12 Job Arbitration at Kinder Morgan regarding Black Book document #25

Issue: Whether the employer’s decision to eliminate a day-shift regular work force stores position and have the day-shift regular work force first aid take over some of the stores duties contravenes Black Book document #25 which sets out that a first aid attendant must be “readily available” for first aid duties.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator found that there was no violation of Black Book document #25 and that the stores duties to be assumed by the first aid attendant would not interfere with the attendant being “readily available”.

2008-11 PCT - Operation of Stakerake

Issue: Whether or not the work carried out by a contractor at PCT was work captured by the ILWU Collective Agreement. Specifically, whether software modifications which had the effect of bypassing a malfunctioned scale and thus limiting the production speed was work in connection with the movement of cargo and regular maintenance as contemplated in Articles 1.03 and 26.01 (9).
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator found that the initial repair, which was a temporary programming fix, was not ILWU work as contemplated by the Collective Agreement. The fix was found to be maintenance work but was not found to be regular, as defined by the arbitral jurisprudence. However a subsequent modification, the programming change that increased the Stakrake maximum speed from 50% to 70%, was found to be ILWU work. The Arbitrator decided that this follow-up change had nothing to do with regular maintenance but was instead for the purpose of increasing production by speeding up the movement of the cargo to the vessel. In this second incidence article 26.01 (9), regular maintenance, did not come into consideration.

2008-10 PCT Staker Reclaimer

Issue: Whether ILWU and Local 500 were in violation of Article 7.01. The Union believed that the Staker Reclaimer at PCT was unsafe as Union members did not have direct control over the machine at all times. The Association believed that the work refusal was an illegal work stoppage and that the disputed operation was in fact safe.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator found that the disputed operation was not unsafe and ordered the employees to immediately return to work. The Arbitrator was unable to find that there was a violation of Article 7.01 in this instance.

2008-09

Issue: Whether a refusal by employees to work in the sulfur dumper operation over a concern of an explosion was a valid safety refusal per Article 7.03. The ILWU argued that the employer be directed to have labourer(s) walk the rail and clean away debris found on the rail cars for the safety of workers on the site. The Association argued that the union was in violation of Article 7.01 and that the employer had implemented safety measures eliminating the need for the labourer(s) to walk the rail.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator found that there was no violation of Article 7.01 and that the union was exercising their rights per Article 7.03. In reviewing the evidence he found that there was no bona fide question of danger, that there was sufficient safety measures in place without the labourer(s) walking the line, and therefore the employees were directed to return to work.

2008-08

Issue: Whether DP World was estopped from cancelling an additional hour of pay to the Top Pick Operators in lieu of taking coffee breaks on the fly and bringing an additional member from the hall to cover scheduled coffee breaks.
                       
The Association argued that the issue was one of a practice that was not written or agreed to by the parties and not a provision of the Collective Agreement. As a result, the Job Arbitrator was barred from jurisdiction via Article 6.02(f) and Addendum 2.

Decision: Arbitrator Keras concluded he was without jurisdiction to hear the matter and in effect upheld our preliminary argument there was no estoppel.

2008-07

Issue: The ILWU Local 500 and certain members of the Union were in violation of Article 7.01 by taking unscheduled coffee breaks on July 31 and August 1, 2008 which constituted concerted job actions as per Article 7.01.
                       
The Union raised a preliminary objection concerning the jurisdiction of the Job Arbitrator to hear the matter as the issue was in front of the CIRB.

Decision: While the arbitrator felt there was concurrent jurisdiction between the Job Arbitrator and the CIRB in this instant case, he declined to decide this specific issue and deferred to the CIRB.

2008-06 Neptune ILWU Local 500 Checkers work

Issue: Whether the recording of the measurements and car seal numbers on a sheet at Neptune Bulk Terminals is the work of ILWU, Local 500 Checkers. This work was presently being done by a Foreman who is a member of Local 514.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator found that the disputed work was in fact work captured by the Collective Agreement. It was found that the measuring of the tallow in emptied cars and the sealing of cars is an integral part of the cargo handling operation and that the recording of the remaining tallow measurement is a component of the cargo handling process. It was also found that this was a necessary function required by Neptune’s customers. As such it was deemed to be captured by Article 1.03 as it is “… the performance of work in connection with the movement of inbound or outbound cargo … under the control of a member of the Association covered by this Agreement”. Lastly the Arbitrator referred the matter of which bargaining unit position should carry out the recording of the tallow measurement back to the parties as insufficient evidence was present to the Arbitrator on that point.

2008-05

Issue: If the ILWU and Local 500 were in violation of Article 7.01 due to an illegal work slowdown at DP World as a result of a new zoning concept for top pick drivers.
                       
Decision: The arbitrator was satisfied from the documents produced which graphically illustrated production rates prior to the implementation of the new zoning concept compared to production rates after that there was a slowdown. This resulted in approximately a 32% loss of productivity. The union therefore, was found to be in violation of Article 7.01.

2008-04

Issue: Whether the new access control system DP World initiated using security guards to check reservations times for inbound containers in order to ensure a secure worksite fell under the purview of management rights.
                       
Decision: ILWU checkers carried out the disputed work prior to their reassignment to the Security Guards was not disputed and as such the work was bargaining unit work. The Job Arbitrator also found that the disputed work associated to the security of the worksite was not borne out in evidence. Therefore, the Union’s issue succeeded and the disputed work was to be returned to the ILWU checkers

2008-03 PCT - Unloading of Railcars

Issue: Whether the use of an over-ride function at the railcar unloading operations at PCT was work captured by the ILWU Collective Agreement. This work in this instance was being conducted by a foreman who is a member of Local 514 and was the result of rail cars being diverted from Kinder Morgan (Vancouver Wharves) to PCT during a maintenance shut down. These cars were causing a red prompt, a warning in the computer interface, as the automated car readers were finding that they were at a location that was not as originally intended.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator found that the use of the over-ride had become necessary for the performance of work in connection with the movement of cargo from rail cars and therefore captured by the ILWU Collective Agreement, Article 1.03. In coming to this decision that Arbitrator concluded that the over-riding of this red prompt was a rare occurrence and given the fact that during the shift in dispute it was now being done 30 – 40 times it had become part of the movement of cargo, as described in Article 1.03. That being said the Arbitrator recognized the extraordinary nature of the situation and its short duration and stayed the decision for twenty-four hours thereby allowing PCT to investigate a technical solution to the problem.

2008-02 Job Arbitration

Issue: On March 27, 2008 at Neptune Bulk Terminals a number of rail cars were being unloaded during the day shift. Early in the shift there was a problem with a conveyor belt that required monitoring the unloading operation which was manageable at the time. However, another mechanical failure occurred in the afternoon which wasn't conveyed to the Superintendent immediately. This resulted in Neptune missing the deadline for additional people from the Despatch Hall. As the union was unwilling to agree to an additional crew, the Superintendent obtained agreement from the unloading crew to an extension of 4 hours. The crew worked until 5:30 p.m. when a business agent from the union arrived and at that point the crew stopped working.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator concluded that through no fault of its own, Neptune had no suitable employees to complete the job and extending the crew was a valid application of Article 21.04 in the circumstances. However, the application of Article 21.04 must be applied in the context of the agreement as a whole and cannot override Black Book document 43A. In other words, shift extensions cannot be used to get around the deadline for ordering crews. The union therefore, was found to be in violation of Article 7.01 with respect to an illegal work stoppage.

2008-01 Job Arbitration

Issue: Whether there was a work slowdown at Western Stevedoring, Lynnterm Terminal Operations during the period March 6 - 15, 2008 regarding the rotation of drivers and access to premium rates for certain shifts under Article 7.01.
                       
The Union accepted there had been a slowdown of work but claim it was the result of the employer insisting on slower work procedures and strict adherence to safety rules regarding Pulp Receiving Procedures.

Decision: In determining the reason for the slowdown, the arbitrator noted that work completed during the slowdown period was between 50 and 96%. The 96% production rate only occurred the day after a meeting with management when there was an agreement to increase production. A document entitled "Return to Full Production” was prepared and presented at this meeting which supported the conclusion that the cause of the slowdown was access to premium shifts and that speed was not an issue. Therefore the union was found to be in violation of Article 7.01 with respect to a work slowdown.

2007-06 Job Arbitration

Issue: Whether a work refusal by all maintenance employees to drive equipment to the maintenance compound was a valid safety refusal, and whether the job arbitrator has authority under article 6.02(a) to create safety policy.  53 Mechanics and 35 Electricians refused to drive equipment to the maintenance compound, after years of doing so, arguing they were not properly trained by an ILWU trainer thereby creating a safety issue.

Decision: The Job Arbitrator found that this was an illegal concerted work refusal prohibited by article 7.01 of the Collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code. The Arbitrator found that there was no danger which would support this work refusal under section 128 of the Canada Labour Code, and that he was unable to write safety policy for the parties. Accordingly, the arbitrator issued a cease and desist order and directed that a copy of this decision be posted for a period of 30 days.

2007-05 Job Arbitration

Issues: (1) Whether the Munroe award, dated January 27, 2007, applied to make the grievance inarbitrable, as submitted by the Employer (PCT), due to a purported settlement on manning reached with the Local; and, (2) If the answer to (a) is no, whether the introduction of the new rigid bulk liquid loading pipe amounted to a material change that triggered the operation of article 23 and permitted PCT to make manning reductions.  The Industry Arbitration Munroe award dated January 27, 2007, had previously dealt with the issue of whether the manning specified by Black Book Document 10A could be altered following a material change in circumstances.  

Decision: The arbitrator found that based on the Munroe award, he had authority to decide whether PCT could reduce the manning levels in these circumstances. The arbitrator then agreed that there had been a material change in circumstances when the new bulk liquid loading arm was either connected and disconnected and agreed with PCT’s proposed manning levels. The arbitrator, however, did not agree with PCT’s proposed manning for pumping only shifts due to his conclusion that there was no material change in circumstances.

2007-04 Job Arbitration

Issue: The Canadian component of the United Transportation Union went on strike at Canadian National Railway (“CN”) on Friday February 09, 2007. During the graveyard shift on February 12th CN operated a unit train of sulphur that was delivered to the site in preparation for unloading during the day shift. The day shift arrived and commenced work as normal until the arrival of a UTU picket line which appeared at the front entrance of the Bulk Terminal at approximately 11:30 am. This prompted the ILWU to walk off the job and had the effect of shutting all operations down at the terminal. At the hearing, the BCMEA made an application for a declaration of an illegal work stoppage in addition to a request for various cease and desist orders.

Decision: The Job Arbitrator accepted that the ILWU’s work stoppage was in concert and coordinated and further held that Article 7.04 of the Collective Agreement did not provide a right for the Union and its members to stop work in the circumstances of the UTU picket line. A number of declarations and cease and desist orders were granted.

2007-03 Job Arbitration

Issue: The Canadian component of the United Transportation Union went on strike at Canadian National Railway (“CN”) on Friday, February 09, 2007. On Saturday, February 10, 2007 CN operated a unit train which delivered coal to Neptune Bulk Terminals Limited. Shortly after the unit train arrived at Neptune, a UTU picket line appeared at the front entrance of the Terminal. This prompted the ILWU to walk off the job and had the effect of shutting all operations down at the terminal. At the hearing, the BCMEA made an application for a declaration of an illegal work stoppage in addition to a request for various cease and desist orders. At the hearing, two justifications for the work stoppage became apparent: the ILWU issued a “Hot” declaration against the CN coal train and the ILWU was respecting the picket line of the United Transportation Union (“UTU”).

Decision: The Job Arbitrator accepted that the ILWU’s work stoppage was in concert and coordinated and further held that Article 7.04 of the Collective Agreement did not provide a right for the Union and its members to stop work in the circumstances of the UTU picket line. The Job Arbitrator also ruled the “hot” declaration against the Coal train was not sanctioned by the Collective Agreement and was therefore void. A number of declarations and cease and desist orders were granted.

2007-03 Industry Arbitration

Issue: Whether a Black Book document outlining specific manning prohibited Neptune Bulk Terminals from eliminating a position due to technological change. Black Book document #76 states “One checker shall be employed with each dumping rail crew”. The document did not contain the phrase “Manning – as per the Collective Agreement, ie. all the men necessary, no unnecessary men”, which is a reference to article 23 of the Collective Agreement.
                      
Decision: The Arbitrator upheld the Union’s grievance. While the arbitrator ruled that the Employer has the unfettered right to implement technological change, he concluded that Article 23 of the Collective Agreement cannot reasonably be viewed as being implied in Black Book No. 76. Further he noted that a specific process for reducing Labourers as a result of the introduction of technological change was included in Black Book No. 76 but there was an absence of such a process for Checkers. The inclusion of this process for reducing the number of Labourers supported the notion that Article 23 was not implied in Black Book No. 76.

2007-02 Job Arbitration

Issue: In response to a Longshore Worker being fired, ILWU Local 502 directed their members not to ride in vehicles with Foremen, which led to more firings and led to “investigations” where the union removed employees from work. The union raised different safety arguments. The BCMEA sought a ruling that this violated article 7.01 of the collective agreement and requested cease and desist orders.

Decision: The Job Arbitrator ruled that Union was in violation of Article 7.01 and directed the Union to cease and desist from counseling any cessation of work.

2007-02 Industry Arbitration

Issues: The Employer initiated a re-hearing of the Job Arbitration decision dated March 22, 2007, and sought decisions as to (1) Whether the purported agreement with the Local on the manning was binding and enforceable; and (2) If not, whether PCT had the right to adjust the manning having regard to the introduction of new equipment.  
The Union accepted the Job Arbitrator’s conclusion that the manning should be reduced from four to three for shifts on which a connection and-or disconnection occurs, however, the Association submitted that the Job Arbitrator erred by his refusal to reduce manning from four to two on the pumping only shifts.  
The Industry Arbitration Munroe award dated January 27, 2007, had previously dealt with the issue of whether the manning specified by Black Book Document 10A could be altered following a material change in circumstances.  

Decision: (1) The arbitrator indicated that in his January award, he held that the purported agreement with the Local was of no force and effect and remained closed between the parties; and, (2) The arbitrator concluded that the evidence supported a material change in circumstances with respect to pumping only shifts. As there was no further contest, the Arbitrator accepted the Terminal’s proposition that it was entitled to implement two-person crews on pumping only shifts.

2007-01 Job Arbitration

Issue: The ILWU Local 502 disputed a vessel crew’s right to unload dunnage to the dock during a shift when no ILWU labour was present. The union argued that the dunnage was “cargo” and in the alternative, that the dunnage was used in the connection of the movement of cargo as captured by article 1.03 of the collective agreement.

Decision: The Job Arbitrator held that the material was dunnage, not cargo, and that the Crew had the right under article 20.01/2 of the collective agreement to unload the dunnage to the dock. It should be noted that while the dunnage in question was not actually used in the connection of cargo that fell under the jurisdiction of article 1.03, the arbitrator did not reference this as a determinative point.

2007-01 Industry Arbitration

Issue: An Employer grievance was filed asserting the right to adjust manning levels on a bulk liquid ship loading operation. A dispute arose following a proposed manning reduction due to the introduction of a new loading arm. The debate centred around whether the Employer could alter the terms of an agreement captured in the “Black Book” Document which set-out mutually agreed to manning for this particular operation.

Decision: The Industry Arbitrator rejected the Union’s argument that the Black Book Document “a specific agreement” should override “the more general” Article 23 which permits an Employer, subject to consultation, to initiate operational changes inclusive of manning reductions. While the Arbitrator stated the Black Book document reflected an understanding between the parties on the application of Article 23 it was in relation to the then existing circumstances which gave rise to that manning agreement. The Employer’s grievance was upheld.

2006-01

Issue: Two individual grievances were filed by practicing Sikhs, whose faith requires wearing a turban, alleged they were denied work to which they would normally have been despatched to because of their inability to comply with a rule that they wear hard hats.

Decision: The grievors claimed pay and a violation of the Human Rights Act. The Industry Arbitrator heard evidence of a historical aversion by the union membership to wearing a hard hat and the existence of two site specific policies which required wearing a hard hat in certain areas as prima facie discriminatory. The Industry Arbitrator also reviewed the BCMEA’s accommodation efforts and found that accommodation at the despatch hall rather than individual employers' work sites was appropriate. The Discrimination grievances were dismissed. As the grievors were despatched in error to positions that required hard hats for performance of some of the duties the grievors entitled to be made whole for the shifts lost.

2005-03

Issues: 1. Union members’ illegal work stoppage following decision of Safety Officer, under the Canada Labour Code, that a danger does not exist. 2. Union’s raising of Article 7.03 of the Collective Agreement over same issue as decided upon by the Safety Officer under the Canada Labour Code.

Decision: Arbitrator rejected Union’s right to raise Article 7.03 and ruled that Union was in violation of Article 7.01, directed the Union to cease and desist from counselling any cessation of work and further directed the employees to commence work without delay.

2005-02

Issue: Union disputed the employer’s right to a one hour shift extension on sulphur loading operation going from train to ship. Union disputed on the basis that, according to article 21.04 of the Collective Agreement, loading from train to ship was a “deepsea operation” and that the extension must be connected to the sailing or shifting of the ship to warrant granting the employer’s extension request.

Decision: Job arbitrator held that loading from train to ship was a dock operation, not a deepsea operation, and that the employer had a right to a one hour shift extension. There was no requirement that the extension be connected to the ship shifting or sailing.

2005-01

Issue: The right of the grain stevedores to order bombardier drivers after the stipulated deepsea ship work order/cancellation times on the basis that such employees constitute “additional employees” as provided in Article 19 and Black Book Document #43A Order Cancellation and Despatch Times – Vancouver.

Decision: The Arbitrator ruled in favour of the Association – upholding the right to order bombardier drivers is “additional employees.”

2004-05

Issue: Union’s appeal of the Job Arbitrator’s Summary Disposition of May 15, 2002, wherein the Job Arbitrator denied the Union’s claim that the Employers had violated the Despatch Rules and Regulations and Article 9 of the Collective Agreement by transferring grain gangs when there was idle grain personnel available in the Despatch Hall. The Job Arbitrator ruled that section 14 (a) of the 1967 Despatch Rules and Regulations no longer remained in force.
                      
Decision: The Industry Arbitrator upheld the Job Arbitrator’s Summary Disposition.

2004-04

Issue: ILWU – Local 500 Business Agent’s obstruction of the 0100 despatch of July 11, 2004 by prohibiting certain Red Dog rated employees from accepting the despatch for Vancouver Wharves. This action shut down the Gisela Oldendorff at Vancouver Wharves on the 0100 shift of July 12, 2004 in contravention of Article 7.01.
                       
Decision: The actions of the Local 500 Business Agent in disrupting the despatch for Vancouver Wharves Red Dog operation was contrary to the normal and usual despatch and as such was a violation of Article 7.01 of the Collective Agreement.

In the result, Local 500 and its Business Agents are to cease and desist from such action and to advise their members to accept the despatch to ensure the Red Dog operation proceeds as scheduled.

2004-03

Issue: Wheat Specialty employees concerted activity to interrupt grain-pouring operations at the shift changeover by shutting down the pipes to thwart a hotseat relief from the following shift – such actions being in violation of Article 7.01 of the Collective Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding Grain Operations dated February 27, 2003.
                       
Decision: The arbitrator found that the language of Article 21.05, in describing an uninterrupted operation, was “quite clear and unambiguous, - no stopping of any operation for any reason”. He ruled that Article 21.05’s application to the Grain Memorandum of Understanding is that “whatever the specific provisions are, unless they specify a stoppage, the grain must continue to flow…and with three person gangs, required breaks can be accommodated without stopping the grain flow”.

The Arbitrator concluded by directing the employees to “cease stopping the operation prior to shift end and to follow the proper direction of their respective employers”.

2004-02

Issue: Is the Association, on behalf of the Employer TSI (Deltaport), estopped from imposing discipline (except in cases of assault, theft and tampering with safety equipment) based on a long-standing agreement with the ILWU Local 502 that the Union will be responsible for imposing all discipline?

In this case, the Employer sought to have the Association impose discipline upon an employee who was a repeat offender relative to alcohol in the workplace. The Union had already put terms and conditions upon the employee’s return to work after the latest infraction.
                       
Decision: The arbitrator ruled that “the Employer or the Association has the right to intervene where a disciplinary sanction by the Union is substantially inconsistent with the standard and appropriate norm. The arbitrator, in this case, concluded that he “was unable to conclude that the Union’s corrective sanction was outside the normal range of sanctions” and therefore, under these particular circumstances, the Employer was estopped from exercising its strict rights.

The agreement for the Union to handle the discipline may be cancelled at any time.

2004-01

Issue: ILWU Local 500’s failure to provide two suitable regular work force applicants for an employer, and its attempt to undermine Articles 4 and 5 of the Collective Agreement by proposing, for that employer’s regular work force, an employee who was in the grievance procedure and denied despatch to that same employer under Article 4.12.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator found that in offering the employee in question the Union violated Article 21.03 (8)(i) of the Collective Agreement and in the process circumvented the prescribed procedure set out in Articles 4 and 5. The arbitrator concluded by directing the Union to cease such action and provide two suitable candidates.

2003-02

Issue: The Association disciplined the grievor for refusing to work as directed. The Association imposed a 30-day suspension and removed the grievor’s ratings. The Union grieved the incident on the basis that, contrary to the foreman’s evidence, the grievor did not refuse to work as directed.
                       
Decision: After considering the evidence as a whole, the Arbitrator determined that he preferred the Employer’s evidence over the testimony of the grievor and the witnesses. The Arbitrator ruled that ‘the material facts are substantially as (the foreman) described them.’ He found that ‘the grievor disobeyed a clear direction from his foreman, despite time to comply and being told the consequences of a failure of compliance. The grievor’s insubordination warranted industrial discipline.’

The Arbitrator then determined the penalty originally imposed was excessive and that a 5 day suspension was appropriate under all the circumstances.

2003-01

Issue: The ILWU Local 502 was in violation of the Collective Agreement Article 24.03 (1) in that it interfered with the transfer of a gang of employees from a log vessel to a vessel handling steel.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator ruled the Employer had the right to transfer a gang under these circumstances.

2002-07

Issue: Association appeal of the Job Arbitrator's Summary Disposition of April 21, 2000 wherein the Job Arbitrator upheld the right of First Aid Attendants to refuse to bag dirty coveralls.
                       
Decision: The Industry Arbitrator upheld the Job Arbitrator's Summary Disposition, ruling that the work direction Neptune sought was inconsistent with the Black Book Document #25.

2002-06

Issue: The Employer fired a lift truck driver and the Union challenged that decision. The Union claimed the disputed firing initiated a question of safety whereas the Association argued it was a work performance issue governed by the parties' grievance procedure. On that basis, the Association argued the matter should not go directly to the Job Arbitrator and raised a preliminary objection to the Arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the matter.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator heard evidence and submissions on the disputed firing and concluded the evidence was contradictory and inconclusive. Additionally, the Arbitrator ruled the issue before him was not a question of safety pursuant to the parties' intentions in Articles 6.02 and 7.03 of the Collective Agreement. Accordingly, it was concluded that the issue was not one in which the parties should relinquish opportunities for internal resolution pursuant to Article 5 of the Collective Agreement. The Arbitrator ruled he was without jurisdiction to hear the matter.

2002-05

Issue: Association appeal of the Job Arbitrator's Summary Disposition of February 9, 2000 wherein the Job Arbitrator held that repair work to overhead doors by a contractor was regular maintenance work as contemplated under the Collective Agreement.
                       
Decision: The Industry Arbitrator set aside the Job Arbitrator's Summary Disposition, ruling that the disputed work was specialty type work ordinarily done by contractors and was not maintenance work of a type or kind ordinarily or normally done by bargaining unit personnel. It followed that the work was not "Regular Maintenance Work" within the true meaning of Article 26.01 (9).

2002-04

Issue: Whether the elimination of ILWU Checker positions and the subsequent installation of electronic car readers (scanners) for the purpose of recording rail car information at BCR Marine - Vancouver Wharves, constituted a violation of Article 26.01 (6) of the Collective Agreement.
                       
Decision: Upon a plain reading of Article 26.01, the general scope provisions of Article 1.03 and Automation Provisions of Article 14, the Job Arbitrator concluded there was no bar to BCR Marine - Vancouver Wharves installation and subsequent use of electronic readers. Accordingly, there was no breach of the Collective Agreement.

2002-03

Issue: The grievance arose from the BCMEA's decision on July 27, 2001 to dismiss the Union Member from all work under the BCMEA/ILWU collective agreement for fraudulently claiming and receiving WCB benefits. Prior to his dismissal, the Union Member was off work for extended periods in the years 1995-2001, claiming WCB benefits (and, for some period, weekly indemnity benefits). The BCMEA asserted that for at least some of the claim's period the grievor was not disabled and was therefore fraudulently in receipt of WCB benefits.
                       
Decision: The arbitrator concluded that the principal issue was the honesty of the grievor. Video tape evidence revealed that the grievor lied about what he could and could not do and was not as physically disabled as he claimed to be. The Arbitrator found that the evidence clearly showed that the grievor had practiced a sustained deceit against the employer (as well as the WCB), amounting to fraud. The arbitrator concluded that the grievor's misconduct shattered the employment relationship and found that the gravity of the Union Member's sustained misconduct simply ruled out any consideration of a penalty other than outright dismissal and therefore upheld the Association's decision to dismiss the Union Member from all work under the BCMEA-ILWU Collective Agreement.

2002-02

Issue: The Union alleged the Employer violated despatch rules and regulations and Article 9 of the Collective Agreement by the illegal transfer of grain personnel when there are idle regular gangs in the despatch hall.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator denied the Union's claim on the basis that the disputed Despatch Rules and Regulations Section 14 (a) no longer remained in force. In reaching his decision, the Job Arbitrator relied on the bargaining history evidence, the terms of the current Article 24 of the Collective Agreement, the undisputed pay claims over the years and the current despatch practices.

2002-01

Issue: Association appeal of Job Arbitrator's Summary Disposition of April 15, 1999 wherein the Job Arbitrator held that certain work performed on Vancouver Wharves segregated dumper, in preparation of handling urea, was work "in connection with the movement of cargo" and therefore bargaining unit work.
                       
Decision: The Industry Arbitrator upheld the Job Arbitrator's Summary Disposition reaching the same conclusion for essentially the same reasons.

2001-06

Issue: The Union alleged the Employer violated Article 26.01.9 by using an outside contractor for the replacement of 800 feet of rail; the replacement of two switch points and the re-grading of three others. The Union argued the work in question constituted regular maintenance work covered by the Collective Agreement.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator denied the Union's claim. In arriving at that decision, the arbitrator considered the history (work normally performed) at the particular site and the existence of a site-specific memorandum of agreement defining "hands on" ILWU rail work. Having considered all of the circumstances, the Job Arbitrator concluded the disputed work was not "regular maintenance" work as defined by the Collective Agreement.

2001-05

Issue: Union alleged that the Employer used non-ILWU workers to haul and unlash cargo.
                       
Decision: The Job Arbitrator denied the pay claim, citing Article 26.01 combined with evidence cited in a 1987 denied pay claim.

2001-04

Issue: Grievance by Union following 'outright dismissal' of grievor for alleged fraudulent conduct.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator held that the Association has established a prima facie case and upheld its decision to dismiss the grievor outright. Note: The name of an individual has been concealed to protect his identity.

2001-03

Issue: Grievance filed by the BCMEA claiming damages against the ILWU Local 500 for losses suffered due to illegal strike activity (staggered coffee break implementation) by Local 500 contrary to the Collective Agreement.
                       
Decision: Damages awarded in BCMEA's favour in the amount of $225,000.

2001-02

Issue: Regular work force electricians at BCR Marine - Vancouver Wharves are in violation of Article 7.01 of the Collective Agreement as they booked off in concert for the 0800 shift for April 12, 2001.
                       
Decision: Regular work force electricians were directed to report as directed.

2001-01

Issue: Industry Arbitration. Drugs/Alcohol Zero Tolerance Policy - Longshore worker smoking marijuana on job site. Association imposed a 15 day suspension.
                       
Decision: Grievance allowed - 15 day suspension set aside.

2000-10

Issue: Industry Arbitration. Union alleged that the staggering of coffee breaks for vessel loading operations constituted an Uninterrupted Operation as per Article 21.05 of the Collective Agreement.
                       
Decision: Industry Arbitrator ruled that the staggering of coffee breaks did not fall under Article 21.05 - Uninterrupted Operations.

2000-09

Issue: Union alleged that the addition of lime to the pollution control ponds at BCR Marine (Vancouver Wharves) was Longshore work.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator ruled that the work in question was not Longshore work.

2000-08

Issue: Union alleged that the repair work carried out on C-68 counterweight structure at PCT was Regular Maintenance Work.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator ruled that the structural work arising from the collapse of C-68 was not Regular Maintenance Work. The Arbitrator further ruled that the replacement of wire ropes and attachment hardware, and re-connection of the system for the C68 counterweight was Regular Maintenance Work.

2000-07

Issue: Union alleged that the loading of a container of slings direct to truck was in violation of the Collective Agreement and the Industry Arbitrators decision re. Summary Disposition 98-03.
                       
Decision: Arbitrator upheld the Union's claim.

2000-06

Issue: Union pay claim alleging that the Employer "knocked off" the wrong gang. The gang with the lower hours was knocked off while the gang with the higher hours was not. Union sought compensation for the gang that was "knocked off".
                       
Decision: Arbitrator upheld the Union's pay claim but awarded a "remedy in kind" to correct the error.

2000-05

Issue: The Union alleged that the removal and replacement of rail tracks on the rotary dumper at PCT was Regular Maintenance Work.
                       
Decision: The Arbitrator ruled the work in question was not Regular Maintenance Work.

2000-04

Issue: Refusal to work as directed by first aid/storespersons at Neptune Terminals on the grounds of safety (bagging of dirty coveralls).
                       
Decision: Refusal upheld - Arbitrator refused to direct first aid/storespersons to bag dirty coveralls.

2000-03

Issue: Union pay claim alleging Squamish Terminals was in violation of the Collective Agreement by withdrawing an additional premium paid to first aid attendants.
                       
Decision: Union's pay claim denied.

2000-02

Issue: Union pay claim alleging that the reinstallation of lashing chains to the deck pad eyes was longshore work. Association argued that the work could be performed by the crew since there were no longshore employees working aboard the vessel at the time.
                       
Decision: Union's pay claim denied.

2000-01

Issue: The Union alleged that the repair of an overhead door was Regular Maintenance Work as contemplated by Article 26.01(9) of the Collective Agreement.
                       
Decision: Arbitrator ruled that the work was Regular Maintenance Work but the Union's pay claim was denied because no evidence was proffered that there were Union members available who were capable of doing the work in question.