Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0907.Christmas and Chaput.88-06-06Hetween: Before: -- Pot the Grievor: - For the Employer: Hearing Date: IN THE @WITFAX OP AN ARBITRATION under THR CRONN RHPL~~EES COLLECTNE SARGAIMNG ACT Before TliEZGRIRVANCRSElTLEKENTSOARD OPSEIJ (J. Christmas 5 G. Chaput) and Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (NiniSt~ of the AttOmey General) J. Gandz Vice-Chairman M. Gandall Nember D.C. mntrose nember P. Cava11uzzo Counsel cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers 6 Solicitors D. cammert Staff Relations Officer Ministry of the Attorney General Femuary 18, 1988 -l- Decision The Grievance -------- The grievor, Gregory Chaput, claims that he was improperly denied a promotion to the position of Courtroom Clerk, Clerk 4 General. The remedy sought is identical to that established in Marek (414/83) in the form of another round of interviews, with new interviewers, based on relevant questions, a review of the personnel files of those interviewed, consultation with supervisors familiar with the work of the candidates, and provision of copies of the job posting and position specifi- cations to the candidates. Article 4.3 of the Collective Agreement provides: In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall-give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualifications and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall be a consideration. The Facts The grievor is a highly experienced court employee. He commenced employment as a courtroom clerk in the period 1973-77 in the Provincial Court, Criminal Division in Sarnia. He then moved to Alberta, returned to Ontario in 1978, and was on contract as a courtroom clerk with the Family Court in Sarnia from February 1978 to October 1980 and was then employed on a ner diem basis by the Criminal Division of the Provincial Court, in Sarnia, until August 1981. In September 1981 he left Ontario to take a position as Clerk for the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton. He was successful in a competition for supervisor in the Criminal Division of the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. While he occupied this position, for only two and one-half months, he supervised seven or eight courtroom clerks. He then moved to the position of Court Administrator for the Provincial Court in Hinton, Alberta, where he also held supervisory positions. In this role he performed the duties of a Justice of the Peace, supervised six full-time and four part-time clerks, covering four locations: Criminal, Family and Juvenile, Small Claims, and Provincial Offences Court. The grievor returned to Ontario in 1982 to pursue his studies at College, worked in the office of the Provincial Court in Coburg between May-August 1983, and eventually returned full-time to the court system as an Assistant Bookkeeper in the enforcement section of the Family Court in London in December 1984. He applied for the position of Courtroom Clerk when it was posted in January 1986. The qualifications for this position were set out in the job posting as follows: Previous experience related to a court office, preferably in a courtroom setting; good knowledge of the legislation, functions and procedures pertaining to Family Court; ability to deal tactfully with the general public, legal profession, and social agencies; good communication, interpersonal and organizational skills; good typing skills; initiative and good judgement. Following an interview, the position was offered to Ms. C. Bird, then a Litigation Clerk and Typist (Clerk 3 General) who had been a permanent employee since October 1, 1984. .According to Mr. Chaput, Ms.. Bird had no courtroom experience and had been employed in a clerical function although her resume indicates that she has substantial experience as a freelance court monitor, a position that also requires working with judges, members of the legal profession, and the general public. Since November 1987, Chaput has been an acting clerk and testified that he has been training Ms. Bird in courtroom procedure. Ms. Bird did not testify at the hearing although she was given the opportunity to ask any questions of the grievor and other witness. From the testimony of Mr. A. Murphy, the Court Administrator of the Family Court, Ms. Bird out-performed Mr. Chaput in the -3 - interview. Specifically, the summary of the interview panel's ratings indicated a score of 76 (out of 100) for Ms. Bird and 63.6 for Mr. Chaput. The questions asked in the interview covered previous work experience (which carried a total weight of only 10 percent), specific questions relating to procedure (2-g). questions relating to interpersonal skills (lo-ll), a general appraisal of communication skills as observed in the interview (12) and typing skills (13). Mr. Allan recalled the grievor's answer to question 11 - a'question dealing with a judge's request to get him to the airport in a very short time - as being unsatisfactory and as evidence of poor interpersonal skills. Mr. Chaput testified that this question was asked by the interviewer in a tone which indicated that it was not particularly serious and that his response was given in light of his interpretation of the question as being flippant or in jest. On this question alone Chaput was given a score of 5 and Bird a score of 10. We note, in the .form of a comparison, that on the 'experience' dimension, Cha&t and Bird were rated egually,by one interviewer and Chaput was given the edge over Bird, by 7 to 6, by another interviewer. Mr. Allan testified that the candidates' personnel files were not checked prior to the decision to award the job, there were no recent and relevant performance appraisals, and he could not recall speaking to the candidates' supervisors. Mr. Allan I testified that he thought it was appropriate to weight typing skills the same as all previous experience. - each carried a weight of 10 percent. We note in this respect Mr. Chapuy's testimony that typing was a relatively insignificant par; of the courtroom clerk's job, certainly any typing skills beyond the 'hunt and peck', form-filling kind. The Decision / It is quite clear that this job decision was made primarily on the basis of an interview and, quite frankly, an interview scoring process which gives this Board some concern. It seems r\ : -4- quite unreasonable to weight an individual's total working experience the same as typing skills which, while useful in the job, do not apparently need to be at very high levels for the kind of occasional, form-filling typing which is done in the job. On that basis alone this Board would have reason to question the job selection. However, that is far from the only problem. Mr. Allan seems to believe that because he knew the people involved, Chaput and Bird, there was no need to peruse their full personnel files or solicit reports from their direct supervisors. He, and the other members of the interview team, could apparently make the decision without such investigations! We simply do not agree. The Board, in Marek (414/83), reviews the relevant jurisprudence of this Board...and it is a long established jurisprudence. The Board in Marek stated: "From the evidence at our hearing, it is clear that the decision to select the successful candidate was made on the b,asis of the application forms and the interviews, without any recourse to personnel files or candidates' supervisors. The successful candidate had been doing the job involved for three years on a contract basis and was known well by the interviewers. Indeed, Mr. Clark testified that he had been told by his superiors that he could not consult personnel files, and it was his practice never to call candidates' supervisors. It is hard for this Board to understand how this could occur, in view of the repeated direction this Board has given on the need to 'consult personnel files and candidates' supervisors, particularly when one of the candidates only is known to the interviewers--see, for example, MacLellan and DeGrandis, 506/81, 507/81, 690/81 and 691/81, wherein the jurisprudence is summarised at pages 25 and 26: The jurisprudence of this Board has established various criteria by which to judge a selection process: 1. Candidates must be evaluated on all 'the relevant , qualifications for the job as set out in the Position Specification. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. -5- The various methods used to assess the.candidates should address these relevant qualifications insofar as is possible. For example, interview questions and evaluation forms should cover all the qualifications. Irrelevant factors should not be considered. All the members of a selection committee should review the personnel files of all the applicants. The applicants' supervisors should be asked for their evaluations of the applicants. Information should be accumulated in a systematic way concerning all the applicants. Bee Remark, 149/77; Quinn, 9/7%; Hoffman, 22/79; Ellsworth et al, 361/80; and Cross, 339/81." In our view, the weighting of the questions in the interview seriously compromise the first two of these criteria and criteria four, five, and six were simply not considered. We consider the Marek award, with its associated reasoning and remedy, to be the established jurisprudence of the Board and, beyond that, a fair, reasonable, and sensible way to go about the process of selecting candidates for positions. Accordingly, we allow this grievance and order the identical remedy as was ordered in Marek: 1. The Ministry must hold another round of interviews for all those applicants interviewed in the flawed process and who still wish to be considered. 2. The interview panel must consist of three persons, none of whom participated in the earlier interviews. 3. The interview panel must establish a series of questions which are relevant and will offer adequate information to enable a judgment concerning the candidates' possession of the selection criteria. 4. The interview panel must consult the personnel files and performance appraisals of all the candidates, and consult with at least one supervisor familiar with the work of each candidate. 5. The candidates and selection panel shall be provided with copies of the posting and Position Specification, so that they can address the particular duties of the job in question. In the event that the Grievor is successful, we order that he be compensated for any loss in wages and benefits which result from this fatally flawed selection process. We also retain our jurisdiction to deal with,any question concerning the implementation of this award. Finally, we are surprised that a case such as this should come before, the Board at this time. The criteria established in Marek are clear-cut, precise, and eminently fair and reasonable. They represent the established jurisprudence of the Board and we must question the value of submitting a case such as this in which the flaws in the procedure are so apparent to the Board. Dated at London, Ontario, this 6th day of bone 1988. M. Gandall, Member D.C. Montrose, Member