122

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION ARISING OUT

OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN :

THE CANADIAN BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS, LOCAL 517

(hereinafter referred to as the "Union")

- a n d -

CANADIAN NATIONAL HOTELS (MONCTON) LIMITED

(hereinafter referred to as the "Company")

The matter of arbitration was heard before a single Arbitrator.

Mr. Robert E. Radford Chairman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Union Mr. Gordon Murray

On behalf of the Company Mr. Gordon Wheatley

The facts of the case are not in dispute, but rather the grievance arose over the interpretation of the Collective Agreement as to whether the Company had the right to unilaterally change the shift of their employee, Lorraine LeBlanc, regardless of seniority.

The evidence is that the Company was of the opinion that its employee, Lorraine LeBlanc, was at the time in question not sufficiently efficient or experienced as a Cashier to handle the customer load during the busiest shift at the L’Auberge Restaurant.

The Employer decided to assign Lorraine LeBlanc to a different shift in order to give her more training and experience at less busy times and under less pressure. It was obvious from the evidence that the most satisfactory shift to Lorraine LeBlanc, was the morning or "A" shift, as it gave her more hours of employment.

The evidence clearly indicated that Lorraine LeBlanc was having difficulty with the morning "A" shift, and it was causing aggrevation to the customers of the Employer.

Lorraine LeBlanc, in her own testimony, indicated that she was a conscientious and thorough employee, who wanted to do things right, but her way. Management did suggest changes in procedure to her but she felt that these changes would increase the risk of error in her work.

The fact that other employees were able to handle the "A" shift to the satisfaction of the Employer and its customers, and the fact that Lorraine LeBlanc was at the time of this Hearing back on the "A" shift, indicates to me that the efforts of the Employer to raise their employee to a level so that she could work the "A" shift, was well handled by the Employer, and had the desired results for all concerned, including Lorraine LeBlanc.

I find that the steps taken by the Employer were necessary, within their rights under Article V of the Collective Agreement, and in the best interests of serving the public.

I therefore dismiss the Grievance.

DATED at the City of Moncton, this 15th day of February, A.D. 1984.

______________________________

Robert E. Radford, Chairman