IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
(the “Company”)
and
TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE
(the “Union”)
GRIEVANCES CONCERNING THE DISCONTINUANCE OF HUMP
OPERATIONS IN CALGARY, AB AND WINNIPEG, MB
SOLE ARBITRATOR: John Stout
APPEARANCES:
For the Company:
Chris Clark – Assistant Director Labour Relations
David Pezzaniti – Labour Relations Officer
For the Union:
Ken Stuebing - Caley Wray
Dave Fulton - General Chair, TCRC-CTY West
Trent Haug – Local Chair Yard Calgary
Harvey Makoski – Sr. Vice General Chair LE-West
Matthew Yancuvk – Local Chair Yardman Winnipeg
Greg Edwards - General Chair TCRC –LE West
Doug Edward - Senior Vice General Chair, TCRC-CTY West
Ryan Finnson – Vice General Chairman Wynyard, SK
John Kiengersky – Vice General Chairman CTY Revelstoke, BC
Bill Pitts – Vice General Chairman CTY Moosejaw, SK
Brett Weisgerber – Vice General Chairman CTY Medicine Hat, AB
Wayne McCotter – General Secretary Treasurer CTY
Greg Lawrenson – Vice General Chairman LE Calgary, AB
HEARING HELD IN CALGARY, ALBERTA ON JUNE 2, 2017
AWARD
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] I was appointed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (the
“Company” or “CP”) and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (the “Union” or
“TCRC”) to hear and resolve several outstanding grievances pursuant to a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated April 12, 2016.
[2] The MOA provides that the grievances will be heard on an expedited basis
and presented in accordance with the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration &
Dispute Resolution (CROA & DR) rules and style.
[3] This award addresses two grievances filed by the Union’s two western
General Committees of Adjustment (“GCAs”). The two western GCAs represent
the Union’s running trade members employed by the Company throughout the
region known as Western Canada (Thunder Bay west to British Columbia).
[4] There are two collective agreements relevant to this matter (the “Collective
Agreements”). One collective agreement applies to the Company’s western
employees represented by the TCRC and classified as Conductor, Assistant
Conductor, Bagperson, Brakeperson, Car Retarder Operator, Yard Foreman, Yard
Helper and Switchtender (CTY-West). The other collective agreement applies to
the Company’s western employees represented by the TCRC and classified as
Locomotive Engineers (LE-West).
[5] The two grievances arise from the Company’s decision in the late summer
and early fall of 2012 to change from a “hump operation” to flat switching in
Calgary, AB and Winnipeg, MB. The issues raised in the grievances are similar.
The Company and the Union each filed one brief addressing both grievances.
2
II. THE CURRENT DISPUTE
[6] The parties were unable to agree upon a Joint Statement of Issue.
[7] The Union filed two separate Ex Parte Statements of Issue (one for each
grievance). The Company did not file an Ex Part Statement of Issue. For the sake
of brevity, rather than reproducing the Ex Parte Statements, I have summarized
the nature of the dispute and set out the parties’ respective positions:
• In the late summer and early fall of 2012 the Company notified the Union,
through several bulletins cancelling yard jobs, that all humping operations
in Calgary, AB and Winnipeg, MB would cease. The Company transitioned
the hump operations in Calgary, AB and Winnipeg, MB to flat switching.
• The Union filed two grievances alleging a violation of article 34 (LE) and 72
(CTY). The Union asserts that the Company was required to provide notices
of material change to the Union and initiate negotiations with the General
Chairmen to minimize the possible significant adverse effects resulting from
the discontinuance of humping operations in Calgary, AB and Winnipeg,
MB.
• The Union seeks an order that the Company comply with their obligations
with respect to material changes under articles 34 (LE) and 72 (CTY). The
Union requests that all adversely affected employees be made whole for all
losses associated with the Company’s violation of the Collective
Agreements.
• The Company disagrees and denies the Union’s allegations. The Company
does not dispute the fact that they made a change with respect to how they
conducted business (moving from a hump operation to flat switching).
However, the Company takes the position that the change was not a
material change and employees did not suffer any significant adverse
effects.
• The Company acknowledges that some employees were laid off. However,
the Company takes the position that the conversion of the hump yards was
not the sole source of the layoffs. Furthermore, the Company takes the
position that those employees that were laid off had less than two years
cumulative compensated service (CCS), which they submit cannot trigger a
material change.
3
III. BACKGROUND FACTS
i. Hump Yards
[8] A hump classification yard is a part of a terminal where rail cars are sorted,
stored and assembled into trains. The “hump” refers to the small hill over which
strings of rail cars are pushed and then uncoupled at the crest and continue rolling
by gravity towards their destination track in the class yard (the classification bowl).
The cars are directed into the desired class yard tracks using remote-controlled
switches. The speed of the cars rolling down the hump into the class yard is
regulated using mechanical retarders.
[9] A hump yard operation requires the following assignments or crews:
• Hump assignments are the crews to release the cars at the crest of the
hump
• Pusher assignments are the crews that assist the hump crews in positioning
the cars at the crest of the hump.
• The Utility assignment is the employee that facilitates the hump operations
by securing tracks, releasing hand brakes and assisting doubling cars over.
• Pull down assignments are the crews that gather cars at the far end of the
hump yard.
[10] Flat switching takes place on flat ground or on a gentle slope. The flat
switching may take place in a yard or enroute.
[11] Flat switching involves a locomotive pushing car(s) to their designated
tracks. The switching is performed by the crew on the locomotive pushing the cars.
ii. The Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg Hump Yards
[12] The Company has operated a hump classification yard in the Calgary
Terminal (Alyth) since at least the mid 1960s until they converted to flat switching
in 2012.
4
[13] The Calgary (Alyth) hump yard required the following assignments or
crews:
• 2 hump crews on the west end
• 1 hump crew on the east end
• 1 utility person in the class yard
• 2 pull down crews at the east end
[14] The Company also had hump operations in Winnipeg, MB since at least
the 1960s. The hump operations in the Winnipeg Terminal took place at what was
known as the “South Hump” and the “North Hump”. The North Hump classified
trains arriving from the east and south. While the South hump classified trains
arriving from the west and north. All traffic originating in Vancouver, BC and bound
for Toronto, ON and Montreal, QC and all traffic moving in the reverse direction
was funneled through Winnipeg. The Winnipeg hump operations were also the hub
of eight subdivisions. Westbound freight trains were often completely
disassembled and re-marshalled at Winnipeg, with a view to blocking groups of
cars so they could be set off at various destinations across the system.
[15] Another distinguishing factor associated with Winnipeg hump operations
was the use of Car Retarder Operator (CRO) positions. A CRO was responsible
for operating car retarders to control the speed of the cars down the back side of
the hump and an electronic switching control panel to direct cars switched at a
hump location. While hump operations were largely automated, CROs were also
on hand for situations when the automated system required manual intervention
(cars that would not roll freely due to various reasons including sticking brakes).
[16] From approximately 2009-2012 CROs were only being utilized in the North
Hump. The use of CROs and all associated bulletined positions at the South Hump
were abolished by the Company.
[17] The abolishment of CROs at both Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg (South
hump) had been the subject of material change notices.
5
[18] In September 1997, the Company served the Union with a notice of
material change at the Calgary (Alyth) hump yard regarding the abolishment of the
CRO positions. The parties negotiated a February 12, 1998 Material Change
Agreement to address the adverse effects of the abolishment of four positions.
[19] In January 2003, the Company issued a material change notice regarding
the abolishment of the CRO positons at Winnipeg (South hump). The parties
negotiated a May 5, 2003 Material Change Agreement to address the adverse
effects of the abolishment of four positions. The negotiated benefits included early
separation allowances and severance payments.
iii. 2012 Hump Operations end in Calgary and Winnipeg
[20] A sea change occurred in mid 2012, with the appointment of Hunter
Harrison as President and CEO. Mr. Harrison sought to find efficiencies, which
included the closing of hump yards and utilizing flat switching instead.1
[21] In June 2012, the Company issued bulletin CMC 046-12, with respect to
the Calgary (Alyth) yard, which noted the cancellation of seven yard assignments
and the creation five new assignments. These changes were to take effect on June
17, 2012. At this point in time there were 68 CTY yard jobs, 24 Locomotive
Engineer jobs, 4 Utility jobs and 6 road assignments. At this time, no employees
were laid off.
[22] The Company subsequently issued bulletins that altered the way the work
was being performed in Calgary (Alyth) yard.2
[23] On July 31, 2012, the Company issued bulletin C-174-12 relating to the
Calgary (Alyth) hump transition. In this bulletin, the Company advised that Calgary
(Alyth) had changed from a hump operation to flat switching. The relevant portions
of the bulletin state:
1
See Q2 2012 Earnings call on July 25, 2012 and Shareholder-Analyst call on December 4, 2012.
2
See Bulletins CMC 047-12, CMC 053-12, CMC 056-12, CMC 057-12.
6
There has been a lot of discussion regarding changes to how Alyth currently
processes traffic, specifically transition of the hump to a flat switching operation.
It is a fact that a flat switching operation will turn cars faster, improving asset
utilization and increasing effective service to our customers.
The reason for Alyth changing from a Hump Operation to Flat Switching is that
Alyth’s current infrastructure does not allow us to process enough cars over the
hump to reach our operational requirements to service customers locally and
down the line efficiently.
The Hump contributes to increasing dwell - a car that is not moving / not being
loaded is not being used efficiently; and therefore, is not constructively
contributing to our Company Operating Ratio.
There is a plan created to utilize the yard in 4 zones, these zones will be used
for:
- Block Swapping
- Flat Switching
- Staging Cars till the next departure, or customer spot.
We have been working with Service Design to have the base plan changed to
ensure success. Regular updates will be made available as we work through this
process.
[24] The Company issued bulletins abolishing and creating jobs to change their
operations from hump operations to flat switching. Because of these changes, the
Utility positions in Calgary (Alyth) were eliminated.
[25] On August 16, 2012, the Company issued a bulletin advising that they
intended to decommission hump yards in Winnipeg, with an expected completion
date by September 14, 2012.
[26] On September 3, 2012, the Company’s Director, Labour Relations issued
a notice to the Union’s general Chairmen indicating as follows:
This letter is to advise that effective with crew change September 9, 2012, the
Company will cease hump operations at Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Although we do not anticipate a reduction in yard crews at this time, it is important
to note that the Car Retarder Operator positions will no longer be required. These
positions will be abolished in line with crew change (WPP) September 9, 2012.
[27] The evidence discloses that at the time of conversion, there were no
employees laid off at either Calgary or Winnipeg.
7
[28] According to the Company, by January 2013 there were 47 Winnipeg
employees on layoff and 32 Calgary employees on layoff. The Company
suggested that not one of the employees laid off had over two years CCS.
[29] The Union’s evidence suggests that on January 13, 2013, 56 Calgary
employees were on layoff. The Union’s evidence was that 6 Locomotive Engineers
positions, 36 Yard Foreman/Heper positions and 4 Utility positions were eliminated
as a direct result of the cessation of hump operations in Calgary.
[30] The Union provided specific examples of Calgary employees who they
insist were adversely affected by the elimination of the hump yard operations in
Calgary. Those specific employees are as follows:
• Pete Cigui was a set up Locomotive Engineer prior to the change and later
became a Trainman on a switcher.
• Aaron Wood was a set up Locomotive Engineer prior to the change and
later became a Conductor in the pool.
• Stanley McLellan was a set up Locomotive Engineer in the pool prior to the
change and later became a trainman on the spareboard.
• Chris Shuttleworth was a Conductor in the pool prior to the change and later
became a trainman on the spareboard.
• Sean Hicks was Conductor in the pool prior to the change and later moved
to the yard spareboard.
• Paul McKinnon was working a regular yard position prior to the change and
later moved to the yard spareboard.
• Ryan Dorr was working a pool position prior to the change and later was
laid off as a Conductor.
• Tim Whelan was a junior employee who was laid off.
[31] The Winnipeg South Hump positions were abolished in April and May
2009. The Union pointed to Company bulletins that abolished jobs at the South
Hump and re-established positions at the North Hump.
[32] The Union’s evidence is that while no one was laid off in April 2012, by
April 2013 there were 39 employees laid off in Winnipeg.
8
[33] The Union provided specific examples of Winnipeg employees who they
insist were adversely affected by the elimination of hump operations in Winnipeg.
Those specific examples are as follows:
• Between April 1, 2012 and April 1, 2013 there were three Locomotive
Engineers lost to attrition and three others lost their position.
• Brian Green a car retarder was accommodated as a CRO prior to the
change, but retired when he lost his CRO position.
• Charlie Brow and John Ladd, also retired after losing their CRO positions.
• Matt Morrisey and Dave Gregory lost their CRO positions and went to yard
positions
• Sean Keir and Wes Geiler went from Conductor positions in the pool prior
to the change to a Trainmen on the spareboard.
• Jacob Laye and Maurice Showers went from working regular yard positions
prior to the change to being laid off.
iv. The grievance process
[34] The Union (both LE and CTY) filed their grievance with respect to the
cessation of the Calgary (Alyth) hump operations at step 2 on November 9, 2012.
[35] The Company responded to the grievance on January 6, 2013. The
relevant portions of the response are as follows:
Over the past 6 months, Alyth yard has gone through tremendous change. This change
has been rapid and would not have been possible without the involvement from the TCRC
and its members.
Over the years, the Alyth hump yard has been used to process traffic and make blocks for
other yards to avoid switching at these locations. Essentially, the biggest change made
was to keep traffic moving to destination without stopping and by having other yards and
terminals handle their own traffic. For example, why have an east-destined car originating
in Vancouver stop for processing in Calgary just to continue east again. As pointed out in
your grievance, other yards are handling traffic, but only traffic destined to them for
processing.
…
…
The change was primarily design-based to move customer shipments quicker through the
network. The Company does not feel these changes fall under the description of “material
change” nor feel it is the Company’s responsibility to make employees whole for all loses
that have resulted from this change.
9
[36] The Union (both LE and CTY) filed their grievance with respect to the
cessation of the Winnipeg Hump operations on November 8, 2012.
[37] The Company responded to the grievance on February 6, 2014. The
language found in the Company’s grievance response is virtually identical to the
response to the grievance respecting Calgary (Alyth), save and except for
reference to Winnipeg instead of Alyth.
IV. DECISION
[38] The Collective Agreements have similar language that applies to material
changes in working conditions. The relevant articles of the Collective Agreements
are as follows:
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS (LE-West)
ARTICLE 34 – MATERIAL CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS
34.01 Prior to the introduction of run-throughs or relocations of main home
terminals, or of material changes in working conditions which are to be
initiated solely by the Company and would have significantly adverse
effects on Engineers, the Company will:
(1) Give to the General Chairman as much advance notice as possible of
any such proposed change with a full description thereof along with
appropriate details as to the consequent changes in working conditions,
but in any event not less than:
(a) three months in respect of any material change in working conditions
other than those specified in subsection (b) hereof;
(b) six months in respect of introduction of run throughs, through a home
terminal or relocation of a main terminal;
(2) Negotiate with the Union measures other than the benefits covered by
Clause 34.11 of this article to minimize significantly adverse effects of the
proposed change on Locomotive Engineers, which measures may, for
example, be with respect to retaining and/or such other measures as may
be appropriate in the circumstances…
10
CONDUCTORS TRAINMEN AND YARDMEN (CTY-West)
ARTICLE 72 – MATERIAL CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS
72.01 Notice of Material Change
The Company will not initiate any material change in working conditions
that will have materially adverse effects on employees without giving as
much advance notice as possible to the General Chairperson concerned,
along with a full description thereof and with appropriate details as to the
contemplated effects upon employees concerned. No material change will
be made until agreement is reached or a decision has been rendered in
accordance with the provisions of Section I of this Article.
72.02 Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects
The Company will negotiate with the Union measures other than the
benefits covered by Sections 2 and 3 of this Article to minimize such
adverse effects of the material change on employees who are affected
thereby. Such measures shall not include changes in rates of pay.
Relaxation in schedule rules considered necessary for the implementation
of a material change is also subject to negotiation…
[39] The material change provisions are unique to the railroad industry. The
provisions have their genesis in the mid 1960’s Report of the Industrial Inquiry on
Canadian National Railways “Run-Throughs” (the Freedman Report).
[40] The material change provisions found in these Collective Agreements
provides a process for notification and negotiations relating to Company initiated
changes in working conditions.
[41] I have recently had occasion to address these provisions in a matter
between these parties. In Canadian Pacific Railway and Teamsters Canada Rail
Conference (Termination of GO Commuter Rail Service) 2017 31781 (ON LA), I
summarized the principles applicable to the material changes provisions as
follows:
The principles that apply with respect to the material change provisions of the
Collective Agreements are well established. In CROA 1167 Arbitrator David Kates
indicated that in order for the notice requirements contemplated under the material
11
change provisions to be triggered, the onus rests on the Union to establish two
factors:
• The Union must demonstrate that the alleged changes in working
conditions were initiated by the Company and such changes are
“material” changes; and
• The Union must also establish that the proposed changes, if
implemented, would not only have an adverse effect on the affected
employees, but such changes must bear “significantly” adverse effect
on the affected employees.
Arbitrator Michel Picher elaborated upon the test in determining if a material
change had occurred in CROA 3083, where he stated as follows:
As the party pursuing a claim under the terms of article 78.2 of the
collective agreement the Council bears the onus of proof. To bring
itself within the terms of the article the Council must establish that
there has been a material change, that it was initiated solely by the
Company and that it "… would have significantly adverse effects on
employees". This Office has had prior occasion to consider the
meaning of significantly adverse effects. In CROA 1167 the
following comments appear:
In considering the second factor referred to above I am also
satisfied that it would not suffice for the Trade Union to show
that the engineers involved were merely adversely affected by
proposed changes. The Trade Union must demonstrate
"significantly" adverse effects. That is to say, it must be
established that such proposed changes in working conditions
will have the adverse effect of rendering the engineer redundant
or superfluous to the Company's manpower exigencies or
otherwise undermine his job security. …
Both parties cited CROA 3539 as providing guidance in resolving the matter before
me. In CROA 3539, Arbitrator Picher explained the meaning of material change as
follows:
This Office has had considerable opportunity to consider the
meaning of “material change”. Essential to the concept is the notion
that a change is essentially indicated as a result of a decision of the
employer, rather being dictated by circumstances beyond its
control, such as the closing of a client’s business or plant,
fluctuations in traffic or other factors which can normally impact
railway operations. The essential concept of material change
protection is that if the employer chooses, of its own volition, to
materially alter its operations, employees should be given certain
protective benefits which might not otherwise be available to them,
where it can be shown that those employees would be adversely
affected.”
12
[42] There can be no doubt that not every change constitutes a “material
change” under the Collective Agreements. In addition, the Union has the onus of
demonstrating that the change at issue falls within the material change provisions
of the Collective Agreements.
[43] The issue to be decided in this matter is whether the events giving rise to
these grievances, the discontinuance of hump operations in Calgary (Alyth) and
Winnipeg, can be characterized as material changes under the Collective
Agreements.
[44] As noted above, the material change provisions are triggered by decisions
initiated by the Company, of its own volition. There is no dispute that the Company
initiated the change in this situation. The Company clearly intended to discontinue
the hump operations in both Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg. The Company wanted
to find efficiencies and it was their view that flat switching would be more efficient.
There is no dispute that it is well within the Company’s right to make such a
decision and find such efficiencies.
[45] There is a dispute between the parties with respect to whether the Union
has met the onus of demonstrating significant adverse effects. Arbitrator Picher
provides insight into the determination of this issue in CROA 3539, where he stated
as follows:
The question of whether a given case satisfies the requirement of
significant adverse effects is one to be determined on a case by case basis, having
regard to the specific facts. For example, in CROA 2225, where the evidence
before the arbitrator gave no indication of any layoffs, transfers, displacements or
of any employee being required to exercise seniority as a result of any reduction
in work, the grievance was dismissed for lack of evidence of any adverse impact.
In other cases, on the other hand, it may be difficult to know at the time of
the notice whether or to what extent there may be significant adverse impacts. In
those circumstances, as occurred in CROA 2139, where the Union has established
a prima facie case of material change which would in all likelihood cause some
dislocation of employees, the matter of material change may be examined as a
separate head, in light of more detailed evidence which might only be available
after the fallout of the implementation of the change.
13
[46] I am of the view that the Union has clearly established a prima facie case.
The evidence submitted in these proceedings demonstrates that the Company’s
change, discontinuing hump operations and changing to flat switching, had
significant adverse effects. In this regard, I find that the change constitutes a
material change under the Collective Agreements.
[47] The Union’s evidence shows that several employees were materially
impacted in a negative way with respect to their employment and work
opportunities. The Utility and CRO positions were eliminated as a direct result of
the changes initiated by the Company. The Union points out that several specific
employees were displaced, transferred and laid off at least partly because of the
change. I am satisfied that, in addition to a reduction in work opportunities, some
of the layoffs at both Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg are also directly related to the
cessation of hump operations.
[48] I disagree with the Company’s assertion that the material change
provisions do not apply to situations involving employees with less than two years
CCS. There is no doubt that some of the benefits, such as relocation expenses in
34.11-LE and 72.14-CTY, will not be granted to employees with less than two
years CCS. However, the parties have not used such qualifying language to trigger
the general application of the material change provisions pursuant to articles 72.01
CTY and 34.01 LE.
[49] Quite frankly, it only makes sense that certain employees would be limited
in the benefits that they might receive due to the adverse effects of a material
change. Just as job security accumulates with seniority, so too would benefits that
apply to those adversely affected senior employees.
[50] I also note that the material change provisions are not limited to only
addressing layoffs. The language is broader and encompasses other negative
impacts with respect to employment and general work opportunities, see for
example CROA 2139. The evidence in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a
14
negative impact with respect to employment and general work opportunities for
employees, including employees with more than two years CCS.
[51] I am satisfied that the Union has established that the discontinuance of
hump operations in Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg were a material change and the
Company ought to have issued a material change notice.
[52] In terms of remedy, the Union submits that providing notice is a
precondition to the Company initiating any material change. Therefore, the Union
argues that I ought to order the Company to return to the status quo ante (i.e.
return the hump operations to Alyth and Winnipeg). The Company disagrees and
takes the position that a failure to provide notice does not nullify the change.
[53] I acknowledge that the language in both Collective Agreements indicates
that notice is required prior to instituting a material change. However, the parties
have not indicated in either Collective Agreement that failure to provide notice
results in a nullity.
[54] In SHP 229 Arbitrator Weatherill made the following comments with
respect to remedy for failure to provide notice, which are instructive:
Notwithstanding the requirement in Article 8 that notice be given under that article
in cases of technological, operational or organizational change of a permanent
nature which will have adverse effects on employees, the cases have dealt with
situations where such changes have been effected without the proper notice being
given as cases calling for a remedy, but not as cases where the remedy is based
on the notion that the change was a nullity and never took place. Rather, the usual
principles relating to damages for violation of an agreement have been applied.
These cases, it may be noted, antedate the negotiation of the present agreement
by some time.
[55] I am of the opinion that where the parties do not directly address the issue
of remedy, then the arbitrator has wide discretion to provide an appropriate
remedy, which may include ordering the Company to return to the former state of
affairs or providing damages.
[56] In this case, I cannot see any labour relations reason to order the Company
to return the hump operations in Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg. Rather, it is my
15
view that this is an appropriate situation to remit the issue of remedy to the parties
to discuss when they address the terms and conditions of the material change
agreement contemplated under the Collective Agreements. I shall remain seized
to address any remedial issue(s) if the parties are unable to reach an agreement
or the issue(s) are not addressed through the material change process.
V. CONCLUSION
[57] After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, I make the
following findings:
• The discontinuance of the hump operations in Calgary (Alyth) and Winnipeg
constitute a material change within the meaning of the Collective
Agreements.
• The Company violated the Collective Agreements by not issuing notices of
material change prior to discontinuing the hump operations in Calgary
(Alyth) and Winnipeg.
• The Union’s grievances are therefore allowed.
[58] In terms of orders, the Company is directed to issue the appropriate
notices of material change. The parties are directed to engage in the material
change process under the Collective Agreements.
[59] I remain seized to address any issues arising from my award and to
address any issue fairly raised by the grievances but not addressed in this award,
including but not limited to the appropriate remedy, if any, arising from the
Company’s breach of the Collective Agreements.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 27th day of June 2017.
John Stout - Arbitrator
16