AH – 504
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
RE: LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER TRAINING SELECTION
GRIEVANCE RE INTERVIEW PROCESS – GLEN E. MOSSMAN
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 ONeil – Labour Relations Associate, CNR, MacMillan Yard
A hearing in this matter was held in Montreal on November 29, 2000
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
Mr. Mossman is a railway employee of some twenty-nine years’ experience, who worked in the service of both CN and VIA between 1975 and 1998. It is fair to say that he has an exemplary work record.
The grievor failed the interview for locomotive engineer training by reason of scoring twenty-nine out of forty points in section B, “Dealing with stressful situations”, where the minimum required mark was thirty-three, as well as scoring twenty-eight out of forty in section D, “Responding in emergency situations”, where a minimum of thirty-one was required to pass.
Upon a review of the interview document the Arbitrator is satisfied that both marks must be adjusted. For reasons related in other awards, I am satisfied that the grievor should not have been denied four marks for failing to respond to question 2 of section B, that he would ensure that the train journal indicates the cause of the train’s delay. The responsibility for train journal entries post NEPO was reassigned from conductors to locomotive engineers. To the extent that certain conductor responsibilities were also assigned to the on-board service manager, it is unfair to expect the grievor to have had precise knowledge of that redistribution of obligations. The four points relating to that answer must therefore be assigned to Mr. Mossman, which would raise him to the pass mark of thirty-three.
Secondly, I am equally satisfied that his response to question 1 of section D, concerning the procedures to be followed in a level crossing derailment, must likewise be adjusts upwards by three points. Possible answer number 5 to that question pre-supposes that the interviewee has been advised of the reassignment of the conductor’s responsibility for communicating with passengers in an emergency situation. There is no evidence to indicate that the candidates had reason to know whether locomotive engineers or the service manager exercised primary responsibility in that regard. The grievor must therefore be awarded the three points relating to that answer, an adjustment which would raise him to the minimum pass mark of thirty-one.
The grievance must therefore be allowed. The Arbitrator directs that Mr. Mossman be placed in the locomotive engineer training program. I retain jurisdiction with respect to any issue of compensation or seniority rights, or any other matter relating to the interpretation or implementation of this award.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December 2000
MICHEL G. PICHER