AH – 501
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
RE: LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER TRAINING SELECTION
GRIEVANCE RE INTERVIEW PROCESS – DAVID COLBURN
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Michel G. Picher
APPEARING FOR THE BROTHERHOOD:
Scott Chamberlain – Legal Counsel, Ottawa
J. L. Shields – Legal Counsel, Ottawa
John Tofflemire – General Chairman, Oakville
APPEARING FOR THE CORPORATION:
E. J. Houlihan – Senior Manager, Labour Relations, Montreal
Melanie Bastien – Labour Relations Officer, Montreal
APPEARING FOR THE OBSERVER:
Frank O’Neil – Labour Relations Associate, CNR, MacMillan Yard
A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on November 29, 2000
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
Mr. Colburn is a twenty-seven year railway employee, in the service of the Corporation since 1987. His service with VIA has been exemplary and he has never received any discipline whatsoever.
The record before the Arbitrator discloses that the grievor recorded a failure of two of five parts of the locomotive engineer training interview process. The second portion for which he was failed involved the assessment of twenty-nine marks on section B, relating to dealing with stressful situations. I am satisfied that the grievor should have received a further four marks for that section, as he could not be expected to be aware of the responsibility for train journals in the post-NEPO period, for reasons related in other companion awards. That would result in the upward adjustment of the grievor’s mark for section B to thirty-three out of a minimum thirty-three, a passing grade.
I am also satisfied that Mr. Colburn’s mark for section A should be revised upwards by nineteen marks. He should be awarded fourteen marks by reason of the fact that he was not advised of the value of the time required in providing answers to questions one and two of section A, “Decision making skills/ work with minimal supervision”. In my view he is entitled to a further five marks in relation to question number three, dealing with the responsibility to report an incident to his supervisor. A general review of the interview questions indicates that the nature of the questions put to the interviewees concerned the actions they would take in the field regarding a particular set of facts. The hypothetical situation concerned an excess of speed by another employee, in respect of which Mr. Colburn correctly answered three of the four possible questions. The final question, relating to reporting the incident to a supervisor is, in my view, not fairly captured by the context in which the employee is asked to respond to the hypothetical fact situation. The additional nineteen points would place the grievor in a pass situation with respect to section A of the interview.
The grievance must therefore be allowed. The Arbitrator directs that Mr. Colburn be admitted to the locomotive engineer training course. Any issue with respect to compensation, seniority or any other aspect of the interpretation or implementation of this award may be spoken to, if necessary.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December 2000
MICHEL G. PICHER