HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2384.Dale.88-08-03.
I
I : cc ONTAR, fMPLO”ES OE LA COURONNE
CROWNEMP‘OYEE.5 DE L’ONT/\R,O
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
RkGLEMENT
I
W-&MEN1
DES GRIEFS
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROW EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIE\rANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSELr (G. Dale)
Grievor
and
The Crown in Right of Ontaiio
-(Ministry of Government Services)
Employer
R.J. Delisle Vice Chairman
H.~O’Regan Member
L. Turtle Member
R. Nelson
Counsel
Cowling & Henderson *
Barristers and Solicitors
For the Employer: G. Polan
Staff Relations Officer
Human Resources Secretariat
Hearing: Nay 25, 1988
I
INTERIM DECISION'
The grievor, Gary Dale, was an unsuccessful candidate for
the posted position of Systems Project Leader in the Realty Group
Systems.Section. There were 90 applicants for the position, the
great majority of whom were non-governmental employees. Five of
the applicants were granted interviews and two of those were
selected as the successful candidates. The applicant was, not
granted an interview and he complains that the selection process
was accordingly flawed and Article 4 of the Collective Agreement
breached. The Board was persuaded to follow the wisdom of
Balics, 42/04 (Verity) and Borecki 256/82 (Swinton) that the
Ministry has the onus of establishing' that the employer acted
properly in denying the grievor,an interview.
The grievor was one of nine ,people working in the Realty
Group Systems Section when the Notice of Competition (Exhibit 2)
was posted. The grievor's classification was that of Systems
Officer, 3; the position sought was classified systems Officer 4.
The grievor's supervisor was Ted. Jensen, the Manager of the
Realty Group Systems Section. Mr. Jensen became the Manager of
the Section in May, 1987. The competition had a closing date for
applications of October 19, 1987 and the selection was done in
November, 1987.
Mr. Jensen is an experienced' manager who has been involved
many times in job competitions. Mr. Jensen testified that he
took all 90 applications home and worked on them over two week-
ends. He noted that most of the applications had resumes
attached but the grievor's application did not. He noted that
2
the information on the grievor's application form (Exhibit 4) was
very minimal and assessing it against the others he found it
lacking. In evaluating it against his Qualifying Guide (Exhibit
5) he found the grievor's application wanting ,in three of the six
qualifying factors which had been set out in the Notice of
Competition. Mr. Jensen accordingly decided not to grant an
interview to the grievor. Mr. Jensen testified that it was his
policy to treat all applicants equally, to judge applicants only
on the basis of information provided, land believed it would be
inappropriate to contact applicants to encourage or elicit more
information.
The grievor testified that he had been doing systems work
for the government since October, 1984. He noted that when Mr.
Jensen became Manager it appeared to him that Mr. Jensen didn't
fully appreciate his qualifications Andy that he therefore
provided him with a resume of his qualifications within a month
of Mr. Jensen taking over. His evidence was that he had all the
qualifications necessary to the job 'and that his resume (Exhibit
6) illustrated that. He explained .that he did not attach .a
resume to his application because he thought it unnecessary since
his supervisor, who wae conducting the competition, had the same
and his supervksor knew his capabilities. In addition he noted
that his resume was lodged in hi& home computer which was then
dismantled and he couldn't then physically generate another. He
testified that on November 16, 1987, Mr.~Jensen'asked about the
missing resume, he explained the reasons for its absence but that
.1
i”
3
Mr. Jensen wasn't satisfied and wouldn't look through the files
to find it. These contacts with Mr. Jensen concerning the resume
were not recalled by Mr. Jensen although he allowed they could
have occurred.
Our task at this stage is to answer simply the question of
whether the Ministry, Mr. Jensen, acted properly in denying the
grievor an interview. We find that the Ministry has not
satisfied its onus of establishing that it did. We respect the
general rule ,that there is an onus on the app'licant to 'be
complete' in his application. We recognise that the grievor
signed his application declaring that the information provided
was "true and complete." But this is not a case where the
applicant is applying to transfer from one Ministry to another
Ministry as in Balics,.supra at p. 11, but an application made to
the applicant's own supervisor in a fairly small section. The
applicant had provided a resume just a few, months before and yet
Mr. Jensen decided to screen his application, and determine
whether he was to be granted an interview, solely on the basis of
what was accurately described ,before us as a blank application
form'. We can not say that Mr. Jensen acted reasonably in this
matter. .*
The parties appeared to agree on the proper remedy for this
violation and we so order that new interviews be conducted of the
two successful incumbents and of the grievor. Then panel who
conducts the interviews will be a new panel, not to include Mr.
Jensen, and the interviews are to be done before July 31, 1988.
4
The Board will remain seized of the matter should the parties
disagree on the proper evaluation of the three applicants based
on their interviews and on their qualifications. The parties are
to notify the 'Registrar if another date is necessary. The
successful incumbents are to be again notified of their right to
participate in future hearings of the matter.
Dated at Kingston this 3rd day of Atigust, 1988.
H. O'Regan, Member
L. Turtle, Member