CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION
& DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 4029
Heard in
Concerning
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY
And
TEAMSTERS
EX PARTE
DISPUTE:
Conductor
J. Shlamp of
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The grievor
hired on with the Company on
The Company
met with the grievor on
The
The Company
disagrees with the
FOR THE COMPANY:
(SGD.) P. PAYNE
FOR: DIRECTOR, LABOUR RELATIONS
There appeared on behalf of the Company:
P. Payne –
Manager, Labour Relations,
D. VanCauwenbergh –
Director, Labour Relations,
K. Morris –
Sr. Manager, Labour Relations,
D. Crossan – Manager, Labour Relations, Prince George
There appeared on behalf of the
M. A. Church –
Counsel,
B. R. Boechler –
General Chairman,
R. A. Hackl –
Vice-General Chairman,
J. R. Robbins –
General Chairman, CN Lines Central,
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
The record
discloses that the Company decided to terminate the grievor’s employment as a
probationary employee. Mr. Shlamp was hired in October of 2009 and qualified as
a conductor on
The record
discloses that on
The final
incident occurred on
As a probationary employee the grievor was governed by article 108A.10(d) of the collective agreement which provides as follows:
(d) A Conductor (trainee) governed by this agreement will be considered as on probation until they have completed 90 tours of service. If found unsuitable prior to the completion of the training program or the 90 such tours, the Trainee will not be retained. The Trainee involved will be interviewed and explained the reason for termination. Such action will not be construed as discipline or dismissal but may be subject to appeal by the General Chairperson on behalf of such employee.
This Office has long recognized that a lower threshold operates with respect to a Company’s decision to terminate a probationary employee, as compared with normal just cause requirements. That is reflected in the following passages from CROA 1568:
It is common ground that the standard of proof required to establish just cause for the termination of a probationary employee is substantially lighter than for a permanent employee. The determination of “suitability” obviously leaves room for a substantial discretion on the part of the employer in deciding whether an employee should gain permanent employment status. … It is sufficient to say that, at a minimum, the Company’s decision to terminate a probationary employee must not be arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. It must be exercised for a valid business purpose, having regard to the requirements of the job and the performance of the individual in question.
The case at hand demonstrates that the grievor was involved in three separate safety or operating infractions in a relatively short period of time. Whatever the Arbitrator may think of the Company’s decision, it is clearly one which was taken on the basis of a well-established factual record, and insofar as appears, without any element of arbitrariness, discrimination or bad faith. I am satisfied that the Company had good reason to take the decision which it did, and that that decision should not be reversed.
For the foregoing reasons the grievance must be dismissed.
ARBITRATOR