HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0971.Crebbin.89-03-07EMPLOY~SOE LA CO”RONNE DE“ONT*R,O
C$XAMISSION DE
REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLRRENT BOARD
BEFORE:
FOR TEE
GRIEVOR:
FOR TEE
EMPLOYER:
FOR TEE
INCUHBENT: T. Dipcoe
appeared on his own behalf
HEARING: February 20, 1989
OPSEU (Crebbin )
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
J.W. Samuels
F. Taylor
D. Montrose
Vice-Chairperson
Member
Member
P. Lukasiewicz
Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
G. Lee
Senior Staff Relations Officer
ministry of Correctional Services
The grievor is a correctional officer at the Toronto East Detention
Centre. In early 1987, he was one of six applicants for a posted position of
laundry officer, and was unsuccessful. He grieves that the Ministry
violated Article 4.3 of the collective agreement. This provision says:
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 laundry officer is in charge of the laundry room at the
institution. This officer directs a group of some eight inmates who do the
laundry generated by the facility. The officer must instruct the inmates in
the methods and techniques of the laundry operation, and direct the
inmates. The officer must ensure the observance of safety precautions and
is responsible for the security of the laundry.
The grievor has had a most interesting career. His resumt5 and his
interview disclose that he has been a driver for the Formula 1 Lotus racing
team, a cook in the British merchant navy, a deckhand on a tall ship, a
captain on a Canadian Coast Guard Marine Rescue vessel, a delivery driver
for a building supplies firm, an insurance agent, a long distance driver for
a moving company, a furniture repairman, a self-employed florist and
landscaper, and a correctional officer. He was first employed by the
Minist& on a full-time basis in 1973. In 1976, he moved voluntarily to the
unclassified service as a casual employee, so that he could manage his own
flower and landscaping business. He returned to the full-time service in
January 1978. His seniority date is January 5, 1978.
As a correctional officer, the grievor had spent some~twelve days in
the laundry, replacing the laundry officer who was away on vacation or for
3
some other reason. It does appear that the grievor could have done the
laundry officer’s job quite satisfactorily.
The grievor has a good record with the Ministry, though there were
a number of absences from work before the posting, due in large part to
medical problems caused by the stressful nature of shift work.
The grievor wanted the laundry officer position in order to work
only regular daytime hours, Monday to Friday.
The selection of the successful applicant, Mr. T. Dipoce,was done by
a panel of two-Mr. J. A. Hume of the facility, and Ms. N. Davies, the
Ministry’s Area Personnel Administrator. They based their decision on
answers given at an interview, on the most recent performance appraisals
of the applicants, and on the attendance records.
Mr. Dipoce had been acting as the laundry officer for 22 months.
His performance appraisal said that he had done an “excellent” job. He had
one month’s more seniority than the grievor.
Mr. Dipoce also scored highest in the interview.
The questions asked at the .interview concerned laundry knowledge
(eg. “If a washing machine starts a rocking motion and will not extract,
what is the problem?“), security procedures, and personal characteristics.
Counsel for the Union argued that some of the questions were not
appropriate because they were based on information available only to Mr.
Dipoce (“Can you outline the present laundry and clothing change schedule
at the Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre?“-it was Mr. Dlpoce
who had established’ the schedule), or because there was some dispute about
the correct answer (“How often must the lint screens be cleaned on the’
dryers?“).
In our view, though one could quibble with some of the questions
and the suggested answers, there was no significant problem with the way
in which the interviews were conducted and the answers scored. Whatever
,
4
adjustments are made for these “quibbles”, the grievor would by no means
have scored any better than Dipoce.
Mr. Dipoce had much more experience directly related to the posted
position. He had been doing the job in an “excellent” fashion for 22
months. Counsel for the Union suggested that this lengthy period in an
acting position violated the collective agreement, but no grievance was filed
about this. And, in .any event, one cannot take away the experience Mr.
Dipoce brought to the competition. His 22 months on the job was real. It
cannot be turned into a “non-happening”.
Not only did Mr. Dipoce score better in the interview (or at least
equal to the grievor, if Union Counsel’s arithmetic suggestions are
accepted), and not only did Mr. Dipoce have much more experience related
to the posted job, but Mr. Dipoce was also the more senior of the two.
,
1
,[
5
In these circumstances, the Ministry’s selection of Mr. Dipoce was
eminently sensible and, indeed, the only decision which could have been
made.
For these reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
Done at London, Ontario, this 7th day Of March , .198<.
D. Montrose, Member