One evening back in the fall of 1955, I was attending a meeting of Ottawa Local 125 F.G. Lawrence Lodge of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (BLF&E). It was a special occasion for we were about to be briefed on our employer's (CP) latest proposal. This was the elimination of all fireman's jobs in freight and yard service and the reduction of firemen in passenger service to a lower paid "helper" category. Those changes were to come into effect upon the completion of CP's dieselization program.
 
As the briefing progressed, we learned of a move that would see almost all of us out of work. How would you react to a proposal like this? At the meeting in question, it was greeted with laughter by many. The laughter was due to the fact that many did not believe it. The laughter was also because we "knew" that there had to be two men in the cab (other than the head end brakeman). It was "the law, wasn't it?"
 
The laughter soon beam concern and the concern soon became reality. This was for real. Negotiations with CP and the BLF&E broke down, as might be expected. Then we got into the big leagues.
 
Early in the summer of 1956, a three-man Federal Conciliation Board was established to examine the case and make an appropriate decision. The Board was chaired by Belleville, Ontario, Judge J.C. Anderson. The company nominee was E.A. (Emmett) Hall, Q.C. and the BLF&E nominee was Senator Arthur W. Roebuck.
 
The case was heard in the Exchequer Court (now the Federal Court) of the Supreme Court of Canada. This writer was one of the two principal witnesses for the Brotherhood's case. The process consumed some five months on an on-again, off-again, basis. It was an education, and if I'd had a crystal ball, I'd have known that the Brotherhood was at the beginning of its end. I, too, was nearing the end of my CP engine service career and about to embark on the next "trip" in my life.
 
The CP's case was quite simple, firemen were not needed on diesel locomotives in freight and yard service. The company said that displaced firemen would be offered other skilled labour jobs, such as car inspectors. The only problem was that there were car inspectors already laid off. Thus, any displaced fireman, regardless of his seniority as a fireman, would have less seniority than the most junior laid off car inspector. In other words, he would have no job at all!
 
The Brotherhood's case was simply that locomotive firemen, regardless of the type of motive power employed, perform a function which enhances operational safety, creates efficiency, and by his presence on the job, cohesiveness among other operating employees.
 
The case wore on. The Conciliation Board even went to the CP's Ottawa West yard and rode around on MLW S-2 number 7089 for an hour with yours truly as the fireman and my buddy Keith Post as engineer. This took place around the end of July in 1956.
 
As the hearings continued, the Company brought in its expert witnesses. The Brotherhood had its experts as well. Tempers flared. There were angry exchanges, the sort of thing you would expect. And, then, it was over. The Board went away to consider the evidence and write a report for Federal Labour Minister Gregg.
 
To make a long story short, Judge Anderson and Emmett Hall supported the Company's position while Arthur Roebuck wrote the dissenting report. This resulted in a strike by CP firemen in January of 1957, effectively shutting down all CP operations as the other running trades threw their support behind the BLF&E.
 
After 9 days of walking around with a picket sign in bitter cold weather, we all went back to work after it was agreed that the case would be reopened and examined by a Royal Commission. Before the Royal Commission hearing was convened, however, yours truly completed his last trip on ancient 2-8-0 number 3436 on 10 Aug 1957, and joined the Federal Department of Transport.
 
I've purposely made this long story short. In its preparation as a "tid bit", I reviewed a file of newspaper clippings which I've saved all of these years. If I'd paraphrased much of what was said or quoted by witnesses, including my own testimony, I'd have filled up several issues of Branchline.
 
As I look back at all of this some 32 years down the road, I have mixed feelings about the whole issue, including some of my own testimony. How wonderful is hindsight, 20-20 every time.
 
What do I remember most about my witness box experience? It had to be the day when Ian Sinclair, Q.C. (CP's General Counsel), grilled me on a point. Later that day, he was standing beside me in the men's room, doing what comes naturally, and asked me if that was my first experience in the witness box. I said that it was, and he said that I'd done alright. I told him that with people like him trying to take my job away, and take the bread and butter off my table, I'd better just keep on doing alright! I don't think that the future chairman of CP was too impressed with me. Nevertheless I'm certain that if Ian Sinclair had been legal counsel for the BLF&E, then there would be firemen on all diesel locomotives today. Ian Sinclair was good!
 
Was the right decision made all those years ago? Was the Company right about "feather bedding"? What about all those solid safety and operational reasons that the BLF&E presented to justify keeping the firemen? There's no use asking me, I'm prejudiced!
 
If those 2,000 firemen's jobs that the Company wanted to dump back in 1956 had been saved, what would the railway industry be like today? Safer? More efficient? Less discord among employees? Would engineers be better able to perform their duties, having served their "apprenticeship" as firemen? In fact, would locomotive and train operation be "better" with a fireman on board these days? I guess that that's the real question. I don't know the answer, my crystal ball went down with a ground relay.
 
It's another interesting tid bit in the history of railways and the people who work on them. It affected many people's lives most adversely. In my own case, a form of new technology was "automating" me out of a job. Ironically less than 20 years later in my capacity as an air traffic control automated system development specialist, I was developing and later implementing a semi-automated air traffic control system! Life sure takes some odd turns. But, then again, that's life!
 
Duncan Du Fresne.