5 The nature of the legal right to discharge an employee has taken on a very different hue In the world of collective bargaining. A classic depiction of that new reality is contained in the award of the arbitrator in the crucial case of Port Arthur Shipbuilding (1967), 17 L.A.C. 109 at p. 112: Without exploring the common law rules of the master-servant relationship, it must be said that this board of arbitration Is charged only with the administration of the collective agreement, and was not intended to provides forum for the enforcement of common law rights. A basic difficulty in this argument advanced by the company was its failure to allege, let alone prove, the existence of a common law contract of employment. Indeed, today the ordinary employee almost inevitably enjoys only an at-will relationship with his employer, which at common law could be terminated for any reason virtually without notice. However, the collective agreement does create an entirely new dimension in the employment relationship; It is the Immunity of an employee from discharge except for just cause, rather than the former common law rule of virtually unlimited exposure to termination. Whatever may have been the early views of labour arbitrators, it is common knowledge that over the years a distinctive body of arbitral jurisprudence has developed to give meaning to the concept of "just cause for discharge" in the context of modern industrial employment. Although the common law may provide guidance, useful analogies, even general principles, the umbilical cord has been severed and the new doctrines of labour arbitrators have begun to lead a life of their own. Thus we turn to the question of whether or not just cause for discharge existed, and to the company's alternate submissions to this effect