Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2268.Jenkinson and Dickey.88-06-09EMPLOY~S DE L4 CO”ROh!NE OEL’ONTAARIO CQMMISSION DE SElTLEMENT REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 2268/87, 2269187 IN TRE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROti EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Between: Before: .'&r the Grievor: >,For the Employer: Hearing Date: Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD oPSEU (Jenkinson and Dickey) and Grievers The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) ..- Employers D.H. Kates Vice Chairman J.D. McManus Member .' M.. O'Toole Member A. Tarasuk Counsel Tarasuk Barrister & Solicitor I. Roland COUllSl?l Gowling & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors '-April 28, 1988 - 1 - Decision Iri this case both grievers grieve a breach of their seniority rights when deniad an invitation to be interviewed during Job competition for the courier's position at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. Brockville, Ontario. It is con~mon ground that the courier-position is classified as "manual work" because the main functions discharged involv-e moving amongst other things, heavy furniture and equipment. The lob posting reads. a8 follows: RESTRICTED POSITION: COURIER CLASSIFICATION: H'ANUAL WORKER SALARY S10.59 - 510.81 hrly. SCHEDULE: 4 - 7 TYPICAL DUTIES: To provide distribution service of all supplies, mail, photo- co~pied material, furniture, equipment, &tc.. to 811 erees of the hospital complex. You will receive provisior+, clothing, ward supplies, etc. from stores and deliver them to other areas 88 designated: pick "pi end deliver from end to all designated areas within the hospital COlllpleX. inter-office mail, atstionery supplies: in&ming and outgoing mail: canteen supplies: furniture: and pick up and deliver non-controlled, controlled drugs end/or etipplies es required. Ability to' perform unskilled manual task-: ability to follow simple instuctiona. good physical condition for heavy lifting. -2- It ie also not disputed that both grievor6 during the course of their employment career with the hospital occupied positions that involved "manual work". In Mr. Jenkinson's case he has been employed for a-period of twenty-two years in the position of Linen Distributor. While engaged in that position the -. grievor on a daily basis transports on carts clean and soiled ._ laundry throughout the hospital facility... And, in Mr. Dickey's case he has been involved zas a Cleaner II in moving furniture and other equipment on carte in order to carry out his cleaning and maintenance functions. In bo!th situations the nature of the.. work recju'ires heevy~lifting where caution must be exercised to avoid damage to the furniture and other chattals of the hospital facility. I.. The~grievors during the cour.se of their careers have both applied on a previous occasion for a vmcancY in the courier's ~. position for which they were deemed qualified to be invited to an interview. In this instance the selection committee determined that the grievora did not warrant the benefit of an interview. Instead Mr. R. Girardin, an employee with six months service, was invited (along with“ five other applicants) .to the interview and he was' ul-tinately awarded.the position. The grievers in short were "screened out". _. ._ Mr. Girerdin was given n&ice of these proceedings and elected not to appear as's party hereto. The relevant provision of the collective agreement governing Job competitions reeds as follows: .~. -3- 4.3 In filling e vacancy, the Employer shell give primary consideration to'quelificetions and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualificetions end ability .are relatively equal. length of continuous service shall be e consideration. As appears from the lob posting the requirements for filling .,. are not onerous. An applicant must be.' the courier’s position able to perform "unski instructions and be in lled' manual tasks. follow simple good physical condition for heavy lifting. Ostensibly it would appear having regard to the grievers' work history they should have atilaast been entitled, particularly~ in Mr. Jenkinson's cese. to be invited for en interview where the selection committee might esaess their qualifications. The selection conimittee wes comprised of Mr. J. Layng. Stores Supervisor. Mr. F. Pinto, Assistant Administrator ..I -.: - ;~ Finance and Support Services, and Mr; L. P,isapio, Personnel Manager. Mr . . .J . Leyng testified es to the reasons the selection committee decided that the grievor=' cendidacies.were not worthy of consideration by the selection cpmnittee at sn'interview. Approximately twenty-?seven npplicants had responded to the lob posting. Of these five wer~'immediately eliminated Prom consideration because they were outside the employ of the Government. Because twenty-two cendidates remained the selection committee arrived et a con&ensus for "screening out" the vast melority. It was‘resolved thet because heavy moving and lifting of furniture comprised a substantial component of the Job requirements and because protecting the hospital's furniture from damage while engaged in this task - 4 - was of utmost significance only those applicanta who exhibited on their applications "experience" in these endeavours would be granted en interview. Accordingly applicants who indicated that _ they had previously engaged in the heavy moving end lifting of furniture whether i‘n an employment capacity or simply in the course of their private affairs were invited. Others. like the . . griavors. who did not indicate such experience, were denied t,he. benefit of an interview end their.appli&ations were accordingly reJected. Moreover, it was of no relevjnca to the selection committee that the grievors~*&d hitherto been invit.ed to en interview for exactly the same position iti (I previous competition. Nor wes it of any importance that the grievers in their present employment capacities were engaged in the heavy lifting end moving of furniture, equipment and other items. Not only "es such "experience" mandatory but if en applicant neglected to literally incorporate end da&ribs that "experience" on their application forms they were eliminated. And so the members of the &election committee reviewed each epplicstion form independently end csne to the uneninous conclusion that only five applicants who hod setisfied th& principal criterion,- es descyibed. were interviewed for the position. The ultimate consequence of the adoption by the selection committee of this piocedure wes the elininstion without the benefit of en interview of Mr. Jenkinsen's applicstion end the awerding of the courier's position to Mr. Girerdin. an employee of six months service: -5- This grievance must 'succeed for several reesons. Quite clearly, the selection committee edopted procedures for appointing the appropriete candidate that violated the standard of reasonebleness dictated by Article 4.3 of the collective agreement. Not only were the grievers' seniority ignored but their obvious qualifications for occupying the position were overlooked. The Job posting expressed the rather straightforward requirements that the successful spplicant be able to perform unskilled manual tasks, follow simple instruction end be physically fit for heavy lifting. The selection committee without notice changed the requirement for the Job to "experience in the lifting of furniture". And even if that consideration could be deemed e reasonable requirement for ~the position, the selection committee proceeded in's mechanicel mnnner. oblivious to the employer's obligations under the collective egreement, to eliminate the .j grievor6 <without the ii&nefit of en interview) who setisfied even these eltsred ~.req~uirements.~ There existed no apparent .~ reason why the selection committee should have blocked from their minds the grievor=' current employment duties to avoid reaching the conclusion that each deserved the benefit of en interview. Moreover, the excuse that the selection'committee would be extending an unfair advantage to those applicants whose duties and responsibilities it wes aware of is simply without merit. Surely, Mr. Pisepio in his capacity as Personnel Manager, would know or oug~ht to be deemed to shave known the employment functions of each of the candidates. Or, more -6- cogently, in proceeding in the manner it adopted the selection y~ committee clearly denied the grievor6 the fundamental components of fairness contemplated by the standards for selection of en appropr~iate chC$idete under Article 4.3 of the collective agreement. For purposes of clarity, it is important to note that this Board is not suggesting the employer wes com@elled to interview each end every candidate. The screening procedure; isa useful device for streemlining the selection,process through the elimination of candidates who ha<,= no probable chance for success. Nonetheless, in adopting an appropriate screening procedure the selection committee, es Article 4.3 contemplates, must pay due regard to an applicant's qu&l&f&cations. as " advertised in the posting es well es their pest service with the employer. For all the foregoing reasons the grievances kucceed. The employer is directed to repost the courier position vacsncy. We shell remain seized for the purposes of the .r: implementation of this direction. Dated this 9th day%& June,~ 1988 . .