CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION

& DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CASE NO. 5205

Heard in Calgary, September 10, 2025 Concerning ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION And TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE

DISPUTE: Whether the grievor, Jeff Schoenberger (Employee #24395), was paid correctly for May 23 and 24, 2024. JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:

On May 23, 2024, the grievor, a Spare Board Operator, accepted the call to Deadhead bus #5403 from North Bay to Thunder Bay. He was told that he would return to North Bay by riding the cushion from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie, Sault Ste Marie to Sudbury, and finally Sudbury to North Bay. The grievor began his assignment at 0015 hrs on May 23, 2024 and was en route to Thunder Bay when the bus he was deadheading collided with a moose 71 kms into the assignment at approximately 0122 hrs. The bus suffered severe damage and was deemed inoperable, and the grievor could not continue to Thunder Bay. The bus was towed back to North Bay, and the grievor was picked up by another employee by vehicle and returned to the North Bay garage. The grievor subsequently went off duty at approximately 0530 hrs. The grievor submitted his working ticket seeking payment for both the deadheading trip from North Bay to Thunder Bay as well as the return riding the cushion trip from Thunder Bay to North Bay. On May 28, 2024, the Company entered an amended working ticket of 450 kms in respect of May 23 and 24, 2024 On May 30, 2024, the Union grieved the amended working ticket and claimed that the grievor should be compensated for the loss of wages for the trip from North Bay to Thunder Bay and the return (riding the cushion) from Thunder Bay to North Bay as well as meals. On May 31, 2024, the Company amended the working ticket and compensated the Grievor for 1136 kms, representing the distance from North Bay to Thunder Bay. The grievance was denied on June 05, 2024. The Union modified the grievance at Step 2 to reflect the claim for riding the cushion from Thunder Bay to North Bay and withdrew the claim for meals on June 14, 2024. The Company denied the Union’s Step 2 grievance on June 19,

2024. The Union provided the Notice to Arbitrate on June 19, 2024. Union Position: The TCRC contends that when the grievor accepted his call, he was told at the time of the call that he would be deadheading Bus #5403 to Thunder Bay and riding the cushion from

Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie, Sault Ste Marie to Sudbury and finally Sudbury to North Bay to complete the assignment. This information was given to the grievor at the time of the call, and the Grievor, if he had made it to Thunder Bay, would not have received a call to return home as he had been given the instructions on the initial call. An email was also sent at 1124 on May 22, 2024, to the grievor and three other operators stating that the grievor would be cushioning from Thunder Bay to North Bay on Friday. The Operations Controller informed each of the Operators for each segment of the return cushion ride that the grievor would be cushioning on their trips. The grievor submitted his ticket with the km’s from North Bay to Thunder Bay and Thunder Bay to North Bay riding the cushion as per Article 6.4 of the Collective Agreement. The Company disagreed with the TCRC and adjusted the ticket to pay 450 kms. The Company, since the filing of the grievance, has readjusted the working ticket once again to pay 1,136 km from North Bay to Thunder Bay. The Company further states in its grievance responses that the route from North Bay to Thunder Bay would be considered one assignment, as per Article 7.1(b)(i) of the Collective Agreement. The TCRC disagrees with this statement as the grievor was ordered from North Bay to Thunder Bay and return to North Bay riding the cushion as stated in the email supplied by the Union. The Union requests that the grievor be paid the return portion of the assignment, 1192.5 Km riding the cushion from Thunder Bay to North Bay as per Article 6.4 of the collective agreement and any other Articles or arbitration awards, all with interest. In the alternative, the Union requests that the penalty be mitigated as the arbitrator sees fit. ONTC Position: The Company contends that the riding the cushion from Thunder Bay to North Bay is a separate assignment and thus the grievor has no entitlement to compensation in respect of that separate assignment. Article 6.4 of the Collective Agreement states as follows: 6.4 Employees involved in a critical incident (major collision, death of passenger) during assignment will be replaced with another employee for completion of assignment with no loss of wages. Employees becoming ill during an assignment will be paid actual kms with a minimum of 420 kms plus reporting and final time for the assignment, whichever is greater. This article is intended for drivers that are away from home terminal. [emphasis added] Accordingly, it is clear that any compensation under Article 6.4 following a critical incident is limited to the “completion of assignment”. ONTC notes that it originally compensated the Grievor in accordance with the sentence in Article 6.4 applicable to employees becoming ill during an assignment. However, it subsequently corrected and amended the working ticket to pay the Grievor in accordance with what Article 6.4 states regarding employees involved in a critical incident. “Assignment” is defined in Article 7.1(b)(i) of the Collective Agreement, as follows: (b)(i) Kilometers shall be calculated from terminal to terminal. The minimum daily allowance for an assignment will be 420 kilometers plus applicable reporting final compensation. An assignment will consist of the terminal to terminal kilometers plus a 11.875 kilometer allowance per unit as described in Article 2 as compensation for reporting time, final time, garage time and loading time. If the layover on that assignment is 8 hours or less, the return portion will be considered part of the same assignment. If the layover is in excess of 8 hours, the return portion will be considered a separate assignment and will be paid a 11.875 kilometer allowance per unit as described in Article 2. [emphasis added] Had the grievor completed the full trip from North Bay to Thunder Bay and not been given additional assignments while in Thunder Bay, the ride the cushion assignment would have started at 0030 hrs on May 24, 2024 at 0030 hrs. This would have meant a layover of approximately 11.5

hrs (including the 8 hours mandatory rest). Article 7.1 (b)(i) confirms that “…If the layover is in excess of 8 hours, the return portion will be considered a separate assignment…”. In short, the Company compensated the grievor for all lost wages in accordance with the highlighted portions of Article 7.1(b)(i) of the Collective Agreement. The Union relies on what the grievor was told when asked to complete the deadheading assignment from North Bay to Thunder Bay. Respectfully, that is irrelevant, given the clear wording of the Collective Agreement (particularly since the call would have been received from another unionized employee). The grievor was only advised of the expected method of return for their own knowledge and information. However, had the grievor arrived in Thunder Bay at approximately 1300 hrs on May 23, 2024 as scheduled, the grievor would have been required to take a minimum of 8 hours rest. Following the minimum 8 hours rest, the grievor would have been required to call in to the Control office for their next assignment regardless of what may have been previously advised. This further demonstrates that the return to North Bay was a separate assignment, and thus not compensable under Article 6.4 of the Collective Agreement. Respectfully the grievance should be denied as the grievor was compensated for all lost wages as outlined in Article 6.4 for the original deadhead assignment from North Bay to Thunder Bay.

For the Union: For the Company: (SGD.) M. Kernaghan (SGD.) K. Darbyson General Chairperson Manager Labour Relations

There appeared on behalf of the Company: G. Ryans – Counsel, Filion, Toronto H. D’Angelo – Senior Manager, Labour & Employee Relations, North Bay K. Mantha – Labour & Employee Relations Specialist, North Bay K. Grube – Director of Motor Coach Operations, North Bay E. Segriff – Senior Manager, Motor Coach Operations, North Bay C. Carpenter – Manager, Operations Support and Control, North Bay And on behalf of the Union: K. Stuebing – Counsel, Caley Wray, Toronto M. Kernaghan – General Chairperson, LE-C, Trenton C. Wright – Senior Vice General Chairperson, LE-C, Barrie

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

Background & Issue

[1] This is a contract interpretation dispute. The Grievor is a Spareboard Operator.

[2] The facts underlying this Grievance are not disputed and have been set out in the JSI. The Grievor accepted a call to deadhead (drive) a bus from North Bay to Thunder Bay. That work was to take place on May 24, 2024.

[3] The Grievor was also told at the time of accepting this call that he would be deadheading this bus to Thunder Bay, then “ riding the cushion from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie, Sault Ste Marie to Sudbury, and finally Sudbury to North Bay ”. The Operators who were driving the buses the Grievor would be riding were also

advised the Grievor would be riding the cushion in their coaches. The Grievor was also expected to take approximately 11 hours of rest between the time he arrived in Thunder Bay; and the time he was to “ride the cushion”..

[4] While driving the bus from North Bay to Thunder Bay, the Grievor hit a moose. This event occurred approximately 70 km into this work, at 0122.

[5] As a result of this collision, the bus suffered severe damage and was inoperable. The Grievor could not continue to Thunder Bay and he was picked up by another employee and returned to North Bay. He went off duty at 0530. He subsequently went on leave due to injuries he received in this accident.

[6] The Grievor submitted his working ticket seeking payment for work up to Thunder bay and back to North Bay. The wage amount sought by the Grievor for going to North Bay was $1,136. The amount sought for returning from North Bay was $1,106. The Grievor also sought $76.00 for meals. The Union did not seek the meal allowance at this hearing.

[7] While the Company initially paid a lesser amount to the Grievor, it has now paid the Grievor $1,136, as if he had completed the trip to Thunder Bay and not hit the moose. Its position is this complies with Article 6.4, outlined below.

[8] The issue between the parties is whether the Grievor is also entitled to payment of wages in the amount of $1,106.00 for when he was to “ ride the cushion ” back to North Bay.

[9] For the reasons which follow, the Grievance is upheld. The Grievor is entitled to be paid $1,106.00 by the Company as lost wages for this assignment.

Analysis and Decision

[10] To determine the issues in dispute, it is necessary to consider what the Grievor’s “ assignment ” was; and more particularly when his “assignment ” crystallized.

[11] The Union relied on the fact the Grievor was told at the time of the telephone call both that he would be deadheading to Thunder Bay, and riding the cushion to North Bay, which was his “ assignment ”. It pointed out the Company also told other

Operators of this assignment, given the Grievor would be “ riding the cushion ” in those buses. It argued this was a single round trip assignment, and not two separate assignments, with explicit instructions for both outbound and return segments. It argued this assignment was a “ single, continuous duty ”. It pointed out the assignment was communicated both verbally, and in writing through an email from the Operations Controller on May 22, 2024. It argued the collision was a “critical incident” under Article 6.4. It also argued that the Grievor never arrived for any layover. In Reply, it argued the Company’s position was strained and technical. It argued Article 7.1(b)(i) governs mileage calculation, not the scope of Article 6.4. It argued the return segment remained part of the Grievor’s assignment. It argued that the Operations Controller was empowered to provide binding instructions and did so. It argued the Company’s interpretation would leave an operator uncompensated for his assignment where a collision occurs, which defies the purpose of Article 6.4.

[12] The Company argued the language of Article 7.1(b)(i) was explicit and unambiguous and it is that language which must be considered to “ understand and interpret ” Article 6.4 for this Spareboard Operator. According to the Company, the Grievor’s “ assignment ” for the purposes of Article 6.4 terminated in North Bay, pointing out that the layover provisions of Article 7.1(b)(i) clearly contemplate that the Grievor’s return trip would be a separate assignment, given he would have taken 11 hours of rest. It also argued it could have changed the Grievor’s assignment in North Bay, which supported its interpretation the Grievor’s assignment would have been completed in Thunder Bay. It also pointed out the Grievor was off on WSIB for May 24, 2024, which would leave him overcompensated if he received a further payment for the return trip. In its Reply, it argued the parties did not add any modifiers to the term “assignment” in Article 6.4, and it must be understood they intended to apply the word “ assignment” as used in Article 7.1 to Article 6.4. It argued the Union was ignoring the principles of contract interpretation. It argued the specific use of the word “ assignment ” in Article 7.1(b)(i) means that Article 7.1(b)(i) must be used to understand Article 6.4. The

return “ assignment” is treated as a separate assignment, given the impact of the layover.

[13] The rules governing contract interpretation were summarized in CROA 4884. Given the expedited nature of this process, they will not be repeated here. The modern principle of interpretation must be applied, which requires that Arbitrators must give words their plain and ordinary meaning, considering the object, scope and intent of the agreement, and within the factual context which existed at the time it was negotiated. If a specialized meaning is evident; that meaning is to be applied. Certain “canons of construction” have been developed to assist in this task, including that specific terms take precedence over general terms. How an Article sits within a provision; as well as within the entire agreement, is also relevant to that interpretation.

[14] Regarding the WSIB, no evidence was provided from the WSIB as to the Grievor’s entitlement. Without that evidence, it is not possible to assess the Company’s argument that the Grievor would be “ over-compensated ” should he recover $1,106 for the return portion.

[15] Article 6.4 states in part:

Employees involved in a critical incident (major collision, death of a passenger) during assignment will be replaced with another employee for completion of assignment with no loss of wages… (emphasis added).

[16] It was not disputed that hitting this moose qualified as a “ major collision ” under Article 6.4 and that this Article applied. The question which remained was what constituted the “ lost wages ” under this Article, which requires a determination of the meaning of “ assignment ” for this Grievor. If his assignment was completed if he reached Thunder Bay, no amount is owing; if not and the term “ assignment” included the return segments provided by dispatch, he is owed $1,106.

[17] Article 7 is titled “ Pay Allowances and Calculating Kilometers ”. Article 7.1 is titled “ Assigned Service ”. Article 7.1(a) states that “[ p]ay allowances shall be set up for each scheduled assignment posted ….”.

[18] Article 7.1(b)(i) then states:

Kilometers shall be calculated from terminal to terminal. The minimum daily allowance for an assignment will be 420 kilometeres plus applicable reporting final compensation. An assignment will consist of the terminal-toterminal kilometeres plus a 11.875-kilometer allowance per unit as described in Article 2 as compensation for reporting time, final time, garage time and loading time. If the layover on that assignment is 8 hours or less, the return portion will be considered part of the same assignment. If the layover is in excess of 8 hours, the return portion will be considered a separate assignment and will be paid a 11.875 kilometer allowance per unit as described in Article 2.

[19] In addition to Article 6.4 and Article 7.1(b)(i), the term “assignment” also appears in Article 9.7. It is that provision which applies to resolve this dispute.

[20] These are two different types of service within the Company’s organization. From a review of the structure of this Collective Agreement, employees who work in assigned service are governed by different provisions than employees working the Spareboard.

[21] Article 9 is titled “ Rules Governing Spare Board Operators ”. It was not disputed the Grievor was a “ Spareboard Operator ”. Article 9.1 states, in part: Spareboard assignment for each coach movement will be made from the spareboard at the terminal the coach originates from, except after augmenting or completion of a driving assignment ending at an away from home terminal, they may deadhead or perform extra service on an existing trip returning to their home terminal.

[22] While Article 9.1 does contemplate that an assignment could be completed upon arrival at an away from home terminal, that Article does not end at that provision. Article 9.7 must also be considered regarding the meaning of “ assignment ” for Spareboard Operators. That section states: Spare operators will be called by telephone when they are required for duty which shall identify the assignment to work , including all known assignments to be protected under Article 9.11 [ augmenting a spareboard at another terminal ]. Except in cases of emergency , spare operators will not be required to operate a different or additional assignment, than what called for, after reporting for duty …( emphasis added).

[23] Article 9.7 is contained within a section which is titled “ Rules Governing Spareboard Operators ”. Article 7.1(b) is located within a section which is titled “ Assigned Service ”.

[24] Giving the words of this Collective Agreement their plain and ordinary meaning; and considering the structure of this Agreement, the argument that Article 7.1(b) must apply to determine the meaning of “ assignmen t” for employees in both assigned service and on the Spareboard for the purposes of Article 6.4, is not persuasive.

[25] Article 9.7 provides that when the Grievor accepts the call from the Spareboard, he was to be told “ by telephone ” two things: a) when he was “ required for duty ” and b) the identification of the “ assignment to work”. Given that wording, it is what the Grievor is told in the “ telephone call ” before the Grievor reports for duty that crystallizes what the Grievor’s “ assignment ” is, for the purposes of his lost wages under Article 6.4.

[26] In this case, the Grievor’s assignment under Article 9.7 – that which he was given before he reported for duty included both going to Thunder Bay and returning to North Bay.

[27] While the Company argued the returning assignment could have been changed by the Company when the Grievor reached Thunder Bay – supporting its arguments

• that ignores that Article 9.7 explicitly states that the Company cannot require that employee to “ operate a different or additional assignmen t” from that identified in that call , after he or she reports for duty, “ except in cases of emergency ”. The explicit wording of Article 9.7 requires that an emergency must exist for the Company to have that ability, after a Spareboard Operator is given his or her assignment. The Company could not have changed the Grievor’s assignment after he reached Thunder Bay, unless there was an emergency at that time. No such emergency was identified in this case.

[28] The Company also relied on the impact of rest provisions as “ breaking up ” an assignment, given that is the impact in Article 7.1(b)(i). That argument is not

persuasive either. While the parties noted the impact of rest provisions on assignments for those in “ assigned service ” in Article 7.1(b) – which includes its sub-articles – the parties did not do so for the assignments of “ spareboard operators ” which are dictated by Article 9.7.

[29] The parties were obviously alive to the impact of rest provisions on how an assignment was to be determined, but did not include a similar provision for spareboard operators in Article 9.7. Instead, the parties agreed that the “ telephone call ” crystallized the assignment for that type of employee; and further stipulated that the assignment which that call identified could not be changed “ after reporting for duty ” “ except in case of emergency ”.

[30] The Grievance is upheld. The Grievor is entitled to be paid an additional $1,106.

I retain jurisdiction to address any questions regarding the implementation of this Award; to correct any errors; and to address any omissions, to give it its intended effect.

October 17, 2025 CHERYL YINGST BARTEL ARBITRATOR