Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1726.Lall.88-10-31I I BOARi DES GRIEFS I 'bNTAW0 EMPlOYESDELP CO"RONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTMlID I &~EVANCE CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT D I Between: Before: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPiOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD For the Grievor: - . For the Employer: OPSEU (P. Lall) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (i;linistry of Health) 6. Fisher J. D. McManus P.D. Camp Vice-Chairperson Member Member I. Roland Counsel Gowling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors R. Anderson Personnel Officer Ministry of Health Grievor i ? Employer 1 Hearing: February 15, 1988 DECISION This is a job competition case with a twist in that the grievor has less seniority thanthe incumbent. Therefore, the grievor has to show that not only was he superior to the incumbent but that this superiority was to such a degree that his qualifications and ability were not relatively equal to that of the incumbent. The incumbent, Karen Grant, was present throughout the proceedings but declined to participate in the hearing. The competition was for the position of Systems Change Control Co-ordinator at the OHIP facility in Kingston. A copy of the relevant job specification and job posting is attached as an Appendix to this decision. The remedy which the Union is seeking is a rerun of the competition. The only complaint the Union has with respect to the running of the competition is that the evaluation systems failed to properly consider and assess the technical side of ’ the position and therefore, overemphasized the administrative and supervisory aspects of the position. It is clear from reviewing the resumes of the incumbent and the grievor that the grievor is superior in respect to technical matters. This was conceded by the employer. The employer seemed to rely heavily on the oral interview and the written questions _. to arrive at the conclusion that the incumbent was relatively equal to the grievor. In - I fact, the grievor did better both on the oral interview and the written questions as his overall score was 77.66 as compared to the incumbent’s score of 72.16 A review of the job specification clearly indicates that a significant portion of the job involves technical aspects. However, of the 16 questions asked, only 3 could even marginally be called “technical” in nature, whereas the balance of the questions involved matters of how to supervise employees, how to prepare reports, knowledge of the -2- organizational structure and the like. In fact, Ms. Brunton, the direct supervisor of the position and the chairperson of the selection committee, said that she specially selected more general questions than she would be normally inclined to do because the competition was not restricted to the Ministry of Health but in fact was open to any employee of any Ministry in the Kingston area. Therefore, it must follow that, had the competition not been open to all Ministries, the questions would likely have been of a more specific (ie. “technical”) nature. It is obvious that for a competition to be fair, and therefore, in accordance with Section 4.3 of the CoIIective Agreement, there must be at least a rough correlation between the weight given to various factors in the job specification and the selection process. Where there is a gross imbalance between these two aspects, the competition is likely not to be fair, and therefore, in violation of the Collective Agreement. In this case there was a gross imbalance between the requirements of the job as set out in the job specification and the job posting as compared to the oral and written questions asked in the selection process. Therefore, the competition was unfair and shouId be rerun on the following basis: 1. The competition would be between only the grievor and the incumbent; 2. A new selection-committee shall be selected; consisting of no members of the previous committee; ; 3 -. The selection criteria, including any written and oral questions asked, should . at least roughly correspond to the relative weight of the elements of the job as set out in the job specification and the job posting; -3- 4. The incumbent cannot rely on any knowledge or experience that she has gained in this job as a result of being awarded the position from the original competition. The selection committee must, therefore, operate on the basis of the incumbent’s experience and knowledge as of the time of her interview in the first competition. This Board retains jurisdiction over the implementation of the decision and over any issues of compensation, including interest, that may arise in the event that the grievor succeeds in the new competition. Dated at Toronto this 31s c day of Octmber ,198. Chairperson -.-- . MlNISlRI 13 MALTH r ~~ MPLIH INSURbh~l Dlv1SlO~ Kkbn”dsma.. io0N.l PROGRAM YRVICIS/IECHhlCAL VRVlCES JR0 FLOOR, A9 PLACL D’ARHS 3. Duties snd Rclstrd 1asrs (tont’d) 1. - scheduling test runs with insurance Systems Branch. - y of tee - rccoqnr*lng Inscc”rscles.‘IMdequecics. - dc,elop,ng rtcwmwndations for corrc=- - recommdmg Implcme”tat~on of updated Programs for live prodvctio”. - liaising with other program branfheS,‘grDuPS to ensure co-ordlnated and timely implementetipn of mw.‘changed systems with minimum dis- ruption in the opcrat~onal arc~s. - monitoring the putPut rCP0rt6’documants from newly developed or changed systems. - docuncnt ing Eyst em changes. - preparing Divisional romwnicatias mnd processing instructions for dissemination to Health l”surencc Division staff. - ensuring Ihal nw SM revrsed PrOCcdure la”uals.‘fptms arc issued. - identifying training rreds end sdvisinp the Manager, lrsininq and Developincnt. - participating in the derelpP~c”t Of training packages. 2. lo analyse the effectiveness of Health insurance Derision systems, SuppOrt and assist Di~islonal perso”“c1 with systems problems, identify opportunities and recmmnd changes by: 30% - a16!~21nc ProLIens. rp?ilFC and s”qgrst*ons rcferre,’ f:om a!! ar?aE and Is,rJs of the Hraltn lnsurancr D~ris~pn. oth?r m,n,str,es and cb!crnal agmcles. - IC\l?.,“E Flr3cess1nq s*s!ms. Identrfylnq prctlem DP~DIIu~,,~ areas. 2 - reco”‘mnd,nq sbstcn cnhan:~~“ts v:~ctdu:~ char.ms tc opiimize eff,c,enc,, ProduCtlrlt, and sualltr cmtro1. - coldurting anal)s~s 01 pr~posais as to feaslblllty and rccommendrng el!erna!,res I” conJu”ct,on “llh Insu:an:e SyslPms Branch ana:,*,*.’ pr~gremers and Health Insurance Derision Stall. - conduct inq post implencntat ion rrvic. of nr..‘chanqed s)s!cms b! re\,ew,ng prod.,r,,on and prsductir,,, reports. - performing periodic audits of processing actlrlties and reporting frndlngs to super,ors. - proriding Ministry and Pro\inclal sud~tors with barkground ,nforr~t~?n on syst cms.‘Pol icles ‘proccdurcs. - revlrring auditors’ reports, probld,ng explanations to Branch Director and taking correclrrc ertlon if necessary. 3. Perform a variety of section sdslnis!tati\e tasks in sapport super\is;r, -such as: 20: - scheduling. planning and assigning various tasks to staff members %d dcteralrung prioritlcs in conjunction with supervisor to meet the deadlines. - sdvislng supcr~prs and D~,lsional Personnel of s,stems problems and reconncnding course of actiqn. - adhislng SUPCIIO~L and Dlvlsional Personnel of status of projects for ass,gord systm areas. - training employees. - Checking WDTL to e”surc ‘wt~ut meets standaros. _ ass:stlng In the PrPparat ion of p0s1tron papers to SUPFar! re:ommn~eS changes 01 new de\elopmnts. *Cl:-E&l-:9 A. SK1115 AND KN!MfDGf RrOUlRiD TO PtRfORH JO6 (Cont’d) Sound kno.Icdge of Health insurance Act and Regulelions and associeted policy, ~dminlstreti\e s)stem and procedural manuals. Knc~ltdge of Administrative Policy HAILING. Strong organisational ability and leadershap skulls. Yell-dereloMd interpersonal and communication skills. both verba! end wrrftcn. Excellent judqewnt required. Sound knowledge of mainframe and micro ccapuler concepts.