Seems like there is more to this story ..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cp-rail-train-conductor-speaks-out-on-her-firing-after-banff-derailment-1.2945404
rdamon Seems like there is more to this story .. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cp-rail-train-conductor-speaks-out-on-her-firing-after-banff-derailment-1.2945404
Very poorly written article. Doesn't stay on point and jumps between training for Conductor and training for Engineer.
Can't really figure out which of several reasons was the actual one for the fireing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This CBC story is bad journalism at its worst, really unbecoming of a national news venue in my opinion. First off it states that she was working alone.. that she was a conductor and then that she was operating the train. The article is classic muckracking... it trots out an "expert" who has nothing to do with CP, may have an axe to grind, and has no first hand knowledge surrounding the specific circumstances of her dismissal. Objectivism is out the window, and since when does a firing while on probation make the national news? People are fired all the time when it becomes clear they're not suited for the job. In her case the engineer of the train or whoever else was with her was not even mentioned in the article... and if she was indeed alone on the train without any training as a locomotive engineer then that would be news for sure. But as usual.. the article is inflammatory CBC BS.. apparently news reporters nolonger receive much or any training these days.
The journalist did a fairly good job, I thought, considering that he was probing into an impossible situation and couldn’t get all the facts, and likely was dealing with an industry he was not well versed in. We are left hanging, groping for the truth, which is unattainable.
On the surface, I question the employee’s aptitude for the job (the ability to see how things fit together), and if the railroad didn’t assume that that employee had that aptitude.
So, at this point, all we can really say is that it is an unfortunate story and that we are in the dark. And dark signals need to be passed with caution, or maybe not at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Well, for starters he could have obtained a copy of her termination letter. Surely if her termination is international news then the termination letter (which the young lady in question acknowledges she has) would be of some interest. She speculates that her firing was somehow related to an injury claim which may or may not have anything at all to do with the derailment incident. My only question is how this managed to get international headlines... even the North Bay Nugget would investigate more thoroughly than that.
I think she provided the answer...
"I wasn't thinking, I was in utter shock. Totally ill-prepared to find something like that," says Katelnikoff. "It put me in a bit of a panic..."
If she was the Conductor, she was in charge of the Train (the engineer is in charge of the locomotive) and should have not been in "utter shock" or "a bit of a panic" and "thinking" is a requirement in all railroading.
As for her "being alone", I think that refers to her being the out as the conductor without a training partner with her, not as being the only employee on the train. That did put her as the only person walking back to the site of the problem as the engineer probably needs to remain with the engine. Too bad the article does not really explain this and just leaves the reader to think that she was the only person on the train.
The railroad might be faulted for putting her in this situation without teaching her how to think about the possibilities of derailments and to prepare her for such, but I suspect she fell apart emotionaly and failed to act in an appropriate manner regardless to what ever training she received, but we are not privy to what she did after the derailment (other than "wasn't thinking", "utter shock" and "panic").
I also think the RR did the appropriate thing to move her to a yard job afterward while they evaluated her response to the derailment and her capabilities. (Don't most hazardous occupations have similar responses to untoward events... police officers are moved to a desk job, or temporary leave of absence, after a traumatic event while the investigation determines the suitability of the officer for the field job, etc.) It was only after some investigation of the event did they terminate her employment for reasons that we don't know at this point. I suspect she was found lacking in the ability to handle emergency situations. That is no reflection on her as a person, some people handle emergencies and some people don't.
It did bother me to see her in the video walking on RR property (and in the gauge!)... I assume this interview and video were made AFTER she was no longer an employee of the RR.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I compliment you on your post, SP. Well reasoned, comprehensive, and balanced.
Semper Vaporo ...without teaching her how to think...
A chief engineer on a progam I worked observed that you can give people knowledge but it is much harder to teach them to think. On the other hand, he observed that it was good to have bright people on the program; he lamented that so few had actual knowledge, which resulted in some pretty disastrous wheel reinventions that we had to correct.
Just my guess, but I suspect that the terminatee had received instruction on haz-mat and emergency response but hadn't much absorbed it.
ChuckCobleigh Semper Vaporo ...without teaching her how to think... A chief engineer on a progam I worked observed that you can give people knowledge but it is much harder to teach them to think. On the other hand, he observed that it was good to have bright people on the program; he lamented that so few had actual knowledge, which resulted in some pretty disastrous wheel reinventions that we had to correct. Just my guess, but I suspect that the terminatee had received instruction on haz-mat and emergency response but hadn't much absorbed it.
...without teaching her how to think...
Semper Vaporo I have taken 1st aid courses and the like, but I have learned from experience that I am not much good in an emergency... the adrenaline hits and I have an "out of body" experience, pretty much losing track of where I am or what I am doing... basically, I don't want to be there, so my mind decides I am not there! ("bye-bye!")
SV,
I think you just described the mindset of the woman who didn't move off the tracks in Valhalla, NY.
Norm
I can sympathize for her being overwhelmed. Some situations simply outstrip one's knowledge and abilities, no matter what one's preparation and experience might be.
That said, I'd suspect that even if she'd had more "ride along" experience, the same thing would have happened, unless she happened to be involved with a derailment during that period.
I wouldn't write her off entirely, yet (although the railroad has). If she has the wherewithall to learn from the experience, she could turn out to be a decent conductor. Or not. Without more information on the actual reason for her dismissal, we can only guess.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
My guess is the injury claim is the main reason she was terminated. Especially since she was still on her probationary period. I'm sure it wasn't listed as a reason on her letter.
Jeff
The story is so jumbled up that the only fact that appears to be unequivocbly correct is that the journalist who wrote it hasn't had much training. For whatever reason CP had decided to cut her loose during her probationary period. Probationary periods exist for a reason. It didn't work out.. not really that newsworthy.
Well... to mention the plaid elephant in the room... it is national newsworthy because 'SHE' is pretty (though that floppy ear'd hat was not all that becoming!). I suspect that if it were a man, no one would have reported it in a newspaper.
Why is no one asking why she was fired? What possible bearing could the conductor have had on a derailment in this situation?
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
coborn35 Why is no one asking why she was fired? What possible bearing could the conductor have had on a derailment in this situation?
We are questioning why? However, what has been presented to date, is inadequate to assess the applicable reason(s). From the article presented, it sounds like she may have been emotionally unable to handle her responsibilities upon viewing the incident and thus was not able to comply with rules for reporting the incident to the carrier as well as conveying proper information to responding emergency personnel.
They fired her because they weren't happy with her performance. Perhaps her firing had nothing to do with the derailment... employers don't need much to let someone go during the initial probationary period of employment.
Assuming she was the conductor (the story gets kinda gray there), you're right - there probably wasn't much (if anything) she could have done to change the basic outcome. About all I can think of would have been to notice and advise the engineer of improper train handling. Given that she was "green," however, I doubt she knew enough to do so.
I'd opine that it is her actions (or inaction) following the incident that may be coming into play. By her own words, it sounds like she was overwhelmed by the situation, thus may have failed to follow procedures properly.
Ulrich The story is so jumbled up that the only fact that appears to be unequivocbly correct is that the journalist who wrote it hasn't had much training. For whatever reason CP had decided to cut her loose during her probationary period. Probationary periods exist for a reason. It didn't work out.. not really that newsworthy.
23 17 46 11
The whole thing doesn't add up.. the article states that mishandling a locomotive can have catastrophic consequences, leaving the reader to conclude that she may have mishandled the locomotive. The letter of termination would tell the tale, at least from CP's side. I doubt they had a vendetta against her... that her termination was probably due to a number of factors that in their view rendered her unsuitable for that position.
I think the reason may be in this line...
"In Banff, after she had left the locomotive to see the derailment, she breathed in fly ash dust. A doctor ordered her not to return to work, until the pain in her lungs subsided."
"unsuitable for that position."
During the probationary period I believe that is the only reason they need to have. It's not likely she was a union member at that stage of employment.
BaltACD rdamon Seems like there is more to this story .. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cp-rail-train-conductor-speaks-out-on-her-firing-after-banff-derailment-1.2945404 Very poorly written article. Doesn't stay on point and jumps between training for Conductor and training for Engineer. Can't really figure out which of several reasons was the actual one for the fireing.
To BaltACD's last point: "...Can't really figure out which of several reasons was the actual one for the firing..."
and from the OP's Posted story "...The letter CP gave to Katelnikoff lists several reasons for her firing, all of which Katelnikoff disputes.
One of the rules she broke was speaking to the media. Katelnikoff contacted a newspaper photographer to see if she could acquire a picture of the derailment..."
I would suggest that Ms. Kateinkoff's action tocontact a Media person, could be/ would be a problem for the Probationary Conductor. As an employee of CPR she could be considered a 'spokesperson', in that specific incident, for the railroad, and anything she might divulge coud be considered testimony in a Court Action (at least in USA). So basicly, Ms. K. removed herself from the 'legal protections of her employer', first: by speaking out publicly, on the incident; secondly, by contacting a 'Media' representative. and possibly, thirdly, by her 'self-inflicted' injury of breathing in the fly ash , losed in the derailment, might be view with disfavor and an attempt to a possible disability claim(?) agains her employer.
Companies are very, very sensitive about statements made by a "Company Representative" [ define that; as anyemployee on the scene (ie; they become a 'spokesperson' to be interviewed ) of an accident scene wearing Company Logo'd apparel that would indicate their employment at that Company] So any statements made by that ad hoc spokesperson; in specific reference to an incident, could have legal impact on a Company.
At major incidents, many companies will authorize a competent spokesperson to relay to the media a specific company position, or narrative regarding that envent. Sometimes to even sending in an employee of a Third-Party Company to speak with the media.
An individual is considered to be an employee of an organization, until that person quits, or is fired for an infraction of company rules. Until those actions remove an employee's condition of employment; a company will protect that employee in legal actions involving the company and its employee.
Hey in the interview she is shown walking the railroad tracks after she has been fired and is thus tresspasing?. Now really it has been my experance that the railroad craft has not been kind to women see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwvrecord.com%2Fnews%2F244551-w-va-sc-affirms-2-million-judgment-against-csx&ei=Yj3aVPj-CIK9ggSviISgDQ&usg=AFQjCNFteH2JJ7HpDTrJyV31kGKUNae6TQ&bvm=bv.85464276,d.eXY
sorry how do I shorten that up.
Ulrich The whole thing doesn't add up.. the article states that mishandling a locomotive can have catastrophic consequences, leaving the reader to conclude that she may have mishandled the locomotive. The letter of termination would tell the tale, at least from CP's side. I doubt they had a vendetta against her... that her termination was probably due to a number of factors that in their view rendered her unsuitable for that position.
Isn't it possible that an evaluation of her performance overall, not just this incident, led to her termination?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I don't get the impression that she was handling the locomotive. Although I can see where that impression could come from the way it's written. The article in one part goes on about engineer duties and training.
That being said, the conductor is equally responsible for the safe handling of the train. If the engineer screwed up some how, the conductor can also be held responsible. Somethings, like speed for instance, can be easily spotted by a new hire. Other things, like proper dynamic brake or air brake operation, probably not so much. Some managers will take things like that into account when charging employees. Often, at first when something happens the entire crew is taken out of service. (The first inclination by some managers is to blame the crew when something happens. Even when it's obvious that a track or equipment defect was the cause.)
All that is really academic since we don't know what caused the derailment. Being a probationary employee leaves her in a bad position. I've heard of new hires being terminated in such situations, even though they weren't at fault in any way. It's rare, but there are some managers out there like that.
Filing a personal injury claim is a bit more serious, even for something minor. It caused a lost time incident. Railroads don't like that. (All this also must take into account that most of us are US residents and we're dealing with a situation in Canada. Reportable injuries, labor laws, and probationary periods, etc. can be different than what we are used to.) In the US a lost time injury must be reported to the FRA. I still think that's why she was let go while on probation.
PS. I tried adding a quote, but for some reason it wouldn't do it. Anyone else have that problem recently?
Not the best of articles as there are several questions left unanswered; however, many companies won't usually comment on the reason(s) why a person was dismissed from their position. Thus making it hard for the reporter to get all the facts. If the woman was on probation and had multiple issues (write ups) then that's one thing, but if she was fired because of the injury claim then that's a big deal. Being that she was on probation it seems a bit odd that she would be the only one on the train, but I understand some smaller lines only have one man crews. It would be interesting to know if she was the conductor or engineer (if two people on board) or if she was infact by herself. It would also be interesting to know the outcome of the investigation as to why the train derailed. If its found not to be her fault as she is claiming then I think she has a leg to stand on if she feels she was descriminated against because of her gender and due to the injury claim.
Trains Northwest
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7z2SF15sZ3pfV_VymvNf9A
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.