AH – 502
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
RE: LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER TRAINING SELECTION
GRIEVANCE RE INTERVIEW PROCESS – R. PAWLUK
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. Pawluk has been employed in the railway industry for twenty-two years, and has worked for VIA Rail since 1990 as a conductor.
The record discloses that he failed two of the five sections of the locomotive engineer training selection interview. Specifically, he registered fifty-five points out of a necessary fifty-nine points on section A, concerning decision making skills/ ability to work under minimal supervision. The Arbitrator deems that that mark should be raised upwards by eight marks, as the grievor was not advised that the speed of his answers would result in gaining or losing marks, it not being disputed that he lost eight points for that aspect of his response to the first question of section A.
The Arbitrator has greater difficulty, however, with the second aspect of the grievor’s failure. It is not disputed that Mr. Pawluk scored fifteen out of forty in section B of the interview, dealing with stressful situations. The minimum score required for that section was thirty-three. Reference to the interview document confirms that the first question of section B, which involved the handling of a train with a disabled last car elicited no positive response out of five possible answers from the grievor. He did not, for example, say that he would stop the train, advise the RTC that an inspection was being done, inspect the car, report the result of the inspection to the RTC or reduce the speed of the train. Inexplicably, the record before the Arbitrator would indicate that the grievor was simply totally unresponsive, or at best indecisive in producing any constructive course of action which he would follow. This is not a circumstance in which the Arbitrator can responsibly adjust the grievor’s mark, as no unfairness is disclosed on the face of the record.
For the reasons related in the award of general principle issued as a companion to this award, the Arbitrator is satisfied that the Corporation was correct in establishing minimal standards and marks for the interview process. As the evidence discloses, the grievor failed rather seriously in one area of the interview, and therefore did not pass. The grievance must therefore be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December 2000
MICHEL G. PICHER