AH – 505
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
RE: LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER TRAINING SELECTION
GRIEVANCE RE INTERVIEW PROCESS – SYLVAIN LANDRY
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. Landry is an employee of VIA Rail with some eight and one-half years’ service as a brakeman, assistant conductor and conductor.
The record discloses that Mr. Landry failed three of the five sections of the interview process.
· Decision making skills/ ability to work under minimal supervision
· Dealing with stressful situations
· Ability to respond in emergency situations
In addressing this grievance, in keeping with the principles reviewed in the general companion award, the Arbitrator has made an adjustment with respect to the first portion of the interview process. Specifically, I have awarded the grievor six points which were docked from his score on section A for the quickness with which he responded. There are, however, no other questions within the interview which involve any unfairness to the grievor. Regrettably, his scores in certain of the areas leave much to be desired, and amply justify the relatively low marks assessed. Even with the adjustment of section A, the grievor would remain with fifty-five of a necessary fifty-nine points on section A, seventeen of thirty-three necessary points on section B, twenty-two of forty on section D and eight of twenty-two on section E.
While the Arbitrator has reviewed a letter written by Mr. Landry to explain his performance, I do not find it persuasive in the circumstances. The grievance must therefore be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December 2000
MICHEL G. PICHER