Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1120.Polack.88-07-04ONTARIO EMPLOYtSCE LA COURONNE CROWNEMPLOYEES CEUONTARIO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE ;;XTll;MENT REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS ,a, O”,,OAS STREET WEST, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MS0 128. SUlTEZlW ,SQ RUE OUNDAS 0”E.W. TORONTO, ,O,,TARlO, MS0 I.?8 - SURUUZIW IN TRE MATTER OF AN ARBITBATION Under THE CROWN EMF'LOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMRNT BOARD 1120/86 Between: OPSEU (W. Polack) Grievor and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation & Communications) Employer Before: J. Forbes-Roberts Vice-Chairman J. Anderson Member H. Roberts Member For the Grievor: R. Wells ~_I Counse 1 Gowling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors. For the Employer: R. Filion Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers and Solicitors Hearing: December 1, 1987 February 19, 1988 DECISION --------_ The instant grievance involves a job competition for three positions of V.R.S. and Prorate Licensing Clerks, Clerk 4 General .vlth, as It then van, the Hinlstry of ‘Transportation and Communi- cation (“the Employerv). There vere fourteen (14) applicants. All vho vere granted intervievs and vere duly informed in vriting of this proceeding and of their attendan~t rights to participate. The remedy sought is~ to have the competition re-run. It vas agreed that the grievor’s seniority date vas November 14, 1979. The succesful applicants had less seniority. The sought after position vas in the Licensing Administration Office, Issulng and Services Section in Dovnsviev. The job involved paper York, deallng vith the public at tvo (2) separate counters, and performing simple photography for drivers’ li- cences. One (11 counter dealt vith standard motor vehicle registration (V.R.C.) and the other dealt vith registration of commercial inter-provincial .trucking operations (C.A.V.R). The latter function involved calculating the prorating of the provincial tariffs involved in such commercial enterprises. The grievor, Mr. Winston Polack, applied for the position and vas granted an interviev. At the time of application he was in the position of Issuing Clerk (Cross Training). Previously the grievor had had the benefit of three month *cross training periods on all three (3) aspects of the posted position. The selection panel vas consisted of Ms. McKnight, Us. Mooney, and Mr. Ainsvorth, the latter being his direct supervisor. The intervfevs vere conducted in the standard fashion, each panel member asking pre-determined questions and independently scoring the applicants ‘oral ansvers. At the end of the intervievs discussions took place and wconsensus” marks vere agreed upon. There vas also a tvo (2) question vritten exam. Because tvo (2) of the panel members knev the applicants, person- nel files vere not consulted. Consequently Ms. HcKnight (the only “outsider”) vas unavare of a performance appraisal covering the period November 1984 to November 1985 in vhich it vas stated that the grievor vas “promotable vith further development.“. The grievor’s interviev took place on July 14, 1986 and lasted approxlmately forty-five (45) minutes. Under cross- examination the grievor agreed that the applled for job vas highly technical, that the interviev questions vere relevant to the job, that he was treated courteously and given full opportu- nity to ansver the posed questions. The grievor scored 9th out of the 14 intervieved applicants. The three succesful applicants scored in descending order, 755 points, 714 points, and 704 points. The grievor scored 546 points. The Union advanced three arguments. First, because of the grievor’s cross training, and his experience as a Revenue Control Clerk he vas the most qualified for the position. Second, because unlike the other candidates he had experience on both the V.R.S m the C.A.V.R. counters, he vas the most qualified. The second argument is really just a w 0 f rephrasing the first. Third, because the selection Panel failed to look at personnel files and consider appraisals the selection process was so fatally flawed that the competition must be rerun. We will deal -2- with the arguments in that order. As earlier indicated the Union’s first and second arguments really amount to one and the same thing. The grievor received cross training. Because he receleved cross training he had experience on both the V.R.S. and C.A.V.R. counters. At first blush it would appear that the grievor’s cross training on all aspects of the posted job would place him in a position of advantage vls a vh the competition. Two of the Employer’s three witnesses dispelled this notion. The Employer called Ms. Theresa Caramanna who at the relevant time was a group leader in the Issuing and Prorate Office. She had been in the department since 1981 and testified that she had performed all functions attached to it. She vas charged with the responsibility of the grievor’s first cross training. This occured from September to November of 1985. It was her unshaken testimony that at the end of that three (3) month period the grievor “...could not do the job.“. She further indicated,that he was extremely slow to grasp the V.R.S. concept, and took between fifty (50) and seventy (70) per cent longer to perform the function than other employees. This information was relayed to Frank Alnsworth (Caramanna’s super 1 or and a member of the selection commiteel. The Employer also called Ms. Margaret Moody, who vas and is Head of Issuing and Services. She observed all three of the grievor’s cross trainings. In her opinion in the areas of V.R.S. and C.AiJ7.R. he simply could not perform the functions. The grievor was ultimately put on the camera for licensing renewals because photography was his hobby, and it was concluded that he could not serve the public at the counters. This Board finds that rather than giving him a “leg up” the grievor’s cross training slmply served to prove that he had not found his niche as a V.R.S. and .Prorate Licensing Operations Clerk. This leaves with the Union’s final argument, that the selection process was fatally flawed due to the panel’s failure to consult the applicants’ personnel files. The argument vas two fold. First, one cannot simply conduct an interview and examlna- tlon. There must be recourse to the personnel files and in particular performance apraisals for there to have been a fair inquiry. All three (3) members of the panel must have the same knowledge about the candidates.~ Because KcKnight was unaware of the grievor’s appraisal which stated “promotable with further development” the process was fatally flaved. The second branch of the argument is that the Employer cannot simply add up marks and avard the available positions to the highest scoring interviwees. There must be an actual assessent of each individual’s ability and qualifications. This involves speaking to the individuals’ supervisors etc. It vas argued the fact that the grievor’s supervisor was part of the selection panel vas irrelevant because his voice vas only one amongst three -3- Employer couneel obviously argued that the procedure was not flawed, and that the result was just and correct. Employer counsel put before us re:StraQ, G.S.B. 88183. At page 17 Arbitrator Joliffe states: After reviewing and considering the course taken by Mr. Everley’s committee, as described above, this Board cannot find that the compe- tition was unfairly or improperly conducted or that the procedure was contrary to the re- quirements of Article 4.3. Of course it is possible to find fault with the conduct of al- most any competition. Like most, there were defects in this competition but we do not think they were sufficiently serious to justify re- jecting it. Jn oartlcular. we think it rearet- e cQlslPlttee & no effort to ex- amine The practice of ignoring such appraisals has been expressly de- plored by this Board.... It is regrettable that the selection committee in this case as in many others thought itself fully competent to reach a conclusion almost exclusively on the basis of interviews with the candidates. Nevertheless. do not tl&k the vrocedure used was so defec- tive as to neaative the vh~& Drocess, (emphasis added) We adopt Arbitrator Jollffe’s reasoning. We find that the instant selection panel made a genuine and unbiased effort to assess the candidates relative ability. The fact that Ms. McKnlght did not see the grievor’s performance appraisals is .~ unfortunate but does not constitute a fatal flaw in the selection process. The grievance is hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of ~-* July , 1988. D.J. Forbes-Rwys, Vice-Chairman ., .” --...~..~ -~ H. Roberts, Member . .