Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2296.Adamowicz.91-06-14 DecisionDE LA COURONNE DE L ‘ON TA R10 DE REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO M5G BETWEEN BEFORE : (4 326- 1388 (476) 326- 1396 FOR THE GRIEVOR 2296/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING : OPSEU (Adamowicz) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Grievor Emp 1 oyer W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member D. Daugharty Member C. Walker Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union P. Young Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors April 12, 1991 2 Introduction By a grievance dated November 15, 1990, Esther Adamowicz, a classified employee with the Ministry of Transportation in London, alleges that job competition No. SW 90-28 was improper and seeks by way of relief that she be interviewed for the position in question, and if successful be awarded that position with full retroactivity. A hearing was held in Toronto. The incumbent, Therese Venerus, was present and was given a full opportunity to participate in the hearing and to make submissions to the Board. The Facts Very few of the facts in this case are in dispute. On September 6, 1990 the employer posted a position for a Design and Services Clerk in the Planning and Design Section of the Ministry's Regional Office in London, Ontario. The qualifications for the position were set out in the posting: -Responsible clerical and/or administrative experience with a basic understanding of administrative and financial management of Engineering Consultant Services. -Demonstrated knowledge of micro and mainframe computers. -Ability to understand and accurately interpret Ministry policies and applicable Ministry Acts. -Ability to organize and prioritize schedules. -Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. In a section of the posting entitled "Instruction to Applicants the following appears: To ensure maximum consideration of your application please respond as follows: -Apply by submitting a completed Ontario Public Service "Application for Employment Form 7540- 1062 or resume explaining where your 3 experience, knowledge, skills and abilities match the qualification criteria listed above. The pertinent information YOU provide aids greatly in the screenins p rocess (emphasis ours). The grievor applied for the position in question but was not selected for an interview. It was agreed by the parties that the grievor had the greatest seniority, should the provisions of Article 4.3 of the Collective Agreement have come into effect. The parties were also agreed that the qualifications listed above were relevant to the position posted. Where the parties were not in accord was whether or not the grievor had demonstrated in her application her suitability for the position in question. Sixteen persons applied for the position. A selection committee, chaired by Mr. Mike Vyse, the Supervisor of the Design Services Unit, reviewed the sixteen applications. This committee determined prior to conducting the review that the first two qualifications indicated above were mandatory to the position in question, and only those applications which demonstrated these qualifications would be forwarded for interviews. The grievor was eliminated at this stage as the committee came to the conclusion that she did not possess the first qualification. Seven applicants were selected for interviews and one of these applicants subsequently withdrew from the competition. Six applicants were interviewed. The incumbent, Therese Venerus, was selected as a result of this process. 4 Mr. Vyse testified about the screening process, and described the position in question to the Board. It is not necessary to rehearse his evidence in detail. Suffice it to say that the selection committee reviewed the grievor's application and came to the conclusion that she did not have the first qualification for the position in question because her application did not indicate that she had that qualification. Based on this finding the grievor was not selected for an interview. Mr. Vyse testified that insofar as the first qualification was concerned, the selection committee was seeking evidence, to meet the interview threshold, of either responsible clerical and/or administrative experience, or a basic understanding of administrative and financial management of Engineering Consulting Services. With respect to the responsible administrative or clerical experience, the selection committee was looking for experience in processing and checking payments, analysis of financial data and monitoring of expenditures. Any candidate whose application reflected experience in any of these areas, or in the administrative and financial management of Engineering Consulting Services, was given an interview. Mr. Vyse testified that the selection committee could not find any evidence in the grievor's application of the grievor meeting these qualifications. In his testimony, Mr. Vyse reviewed different parts of the grievor's application and explained why the information the grievor 5 provided did not suggest to the committee that the different aspects of this qualification had been met. In brief, the selection committee came to the conclusion that what experience the grievor had was predominately secretarial. The grievor's knowledge of budgets and consulting contracts, to give two examples, appeared to the selection committee from the information provided in the grievor's application, to be based on her having typed them. Moreover, the committee did not find anything in the grievor's position specification indicating that she had the qualifications to be considered for the position in question. The committee therefore concluded that she did not have the experience necessary to be interviewed for the position. The grievor's application did, however, indicate that the grievor had undertaken significant and responsible duties with respect to the local credit union. Mr. Vyse testified that the committee did not consider this qualification relevant because it was not job- related. In cross-examination, Mr. Vyse elaborated on the screening process and explained why the selection committee considered some applications to meet the qualifications in question. Mr. Vyse also told the Board that one of the members of the selection committee, Mr. Keith Henderson, was familiar with the grievor's work, but did not bring any knowledge of that work to the deliberations of the selection committee. Mr. Vyse added, however, that no member of 6 the selection committee brought his or her knowledge of any of the applicants before the committee in the screening process. The grievor gave evidence on her own behalf. Ms. Adamowicz has almost twenty years seniority with the Ministry, and is obviously a valuable employee who makes an important contribution to the work of the Ministry. The grievor elaborated on different aspects of her application and explained why she thought they demonstrated her having met the first qualification. It was clear from her evidence that the grievor does exercise various functions beyond typing. However, as the grievor subsequently indicated on cross- examination, she did not communicate those duties and responsibilities on the application form for the consideration of the selection committee. The grievor told the Board that she felt that she could expand on her qualifications at the interview and that is why she did not indicate all of them on her application. In retrospect, the grievor agreed that she should have expanded more in her application on her qualifications for the position. With respect to the knowledge that Mr. Henderson might have been able to bring to the deliberations of the selection committee, the grievor testified that she had performed secretarial work for him as well as for other ministry staff. Union Argrument The union took the position that the grievor had indicated sufficient qualifications to be selected for the interview. In Mr. 7 Walker's view, the problem was not so much that the grievor had not put all the information down, but that the employer had not taken the necessary step of reading into the information provided the qualifications for the position. Moreover, the employer could have and should have asked for further information if that was necessary in order to fairly evaluate the grievor in this case. Mr. Walker was also of the view that the employer was wrong in not giving the grievor credit for the responsible financial and administrative work she did at the credit union. Whether or not that work was job-related was not important; what mattered was that this work indicated that the grievor had the qualifications for the position she was being considered for, in particular, the first mandatory qualification on the posting. In Mr. Walker's submission, the employer is required in interviewing applicants to ensure that it considers all relevant information, and the credit union experience indicated on the application was arguably relevant. Mr. Walker drew the Board's attention to Jenkinson and Dickey 2268/87 (Kates), where a job competition was ordered re-run after the Board determined that the selection committee had blocked from its mind the qualifications of two seniority candidates when it knew that those candidates had the basic qualifications for the position in question. The Board found that this defeated article 4.3 of the Collective Agreement. Likewise, Mr. Walker urged us to 8 reach a similar result. In closing, Mr. Walker asked the Board to order a new competition between the incumbent and the grievor. Employer Argument Counsel for the employer drew the Board's attention to the Balics 42/84 (Verity) decision where the Board held, inter alia, that there is no obligation upon the employer in processing a job competition to interview all applicants. In Balics, a case where a seniority employee grieved the failure of the employer to interview him for a position, the Board came to the conclusion that the grievor's written application for the competition did not make it apparent that he possessed the necessary qualifications for the job. The Board then went on to make the following observation: The responsibility lies with the Grievor to set forth in his written application his related qualifications and abilities in order to reach the interview stage of the competition. In our opinion, the Grievor has failed in that regard (at 11). The Board also said that "an employee cannot expect that the Employer will read into an application, data and information which is not contained on the form of the application" (at 12). The Board in Balics accordingly dismissed the grievance. Counsel for the employer urged the Board to find that the screening process in the instant case was done fairly and consistently, and pointed out that the most telling evidence of all was that of the grievor, who conceded in cross-examination that she had not indicated in her application the various points she had elaborated 9 upon in her testimony. With respect to the material in the application concerning the grievor's work at the credit union, it was, in Mr. Young's submission, not immediately evident that this work related directly to the first qualification. Decision Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, we have reached the conclusion that this grievance must be denied. The following observations have been quoted with approval in numerous GSB awards: Did the employer act improperly, then, in failing to interview the grievor? In conducting a job -competition, an employer can not be required to interview all the applicants, regardless of their suitability. When numerous applications come forward, as is common in the public service with its large number of employees, questions of efficiency and cost may require the screening of applications. At times, only those meeting the basic qualifications may be considered. Of course, these qualifications must be reasonably related to the job in question. At other times, the pool of apparently qualified applicants may be so large that a ranking of the most qualified will have to occur and only those with the highest scores will be called for an interview and further consideration. The ranking, again, must be reasonable, in the sense that each candidate's qualifications are reasonably evaluated. Failure to interview an employee with greater seniority than the successful candidate may well lead to a grievance, with the senior employee arguing that he is relatively equal (Borecki 356/82 (Swinton) at 7-8). In Colacci 912/82 (Simmons), the Board noted that applicants are not entitled by right to an interview, nor is management required to interview all applicants. What is essential is that the employer fairly and consistently evaluate all applications. We find that this was done in the instant case. 10 There is no evidence in the instant case, as in Jenkinson and Dickey, that the selection committee knew that the grievor had the qualifications, but nevertheless declined to interview her. Had this been the case we would have ordered the competition to be re- run. In this regard, it is worth observing that while the grievor had previously worked for one of the members of the selection committee, that work was secretarial and was not relevant to the qualifications being sought. Accordingly, it would not have mattered whether or not that work experience had been considered in the screening process. It is also worth noting that the Union did not dispute the relevance of the qualifications, nor did it challenge the Ministry's determination that the first qualification was mandatory. We find that the employer determined, from its review of the grievor's application, that she did not have this qualification, and it was on this basis that the grievor was not selected for an interview. The Board has long indicated that in job selection cases the employer is required to use a process of decision-making that ensures that it elicits sufficient relevant information to consider different applicants. The employer is not required, as successive panels of this Board have observed, as part of that process, to interview every applicant. It is up to applicants to ensure that that they provide relevant information about themselves for the 11 employer to review. In the instant case, the grievor did not bring her qualifications to the attention of the employer, and she was screened out on this basis. To be sure, the employer could have decided in this case that the grievor's description on her application of her work in the credit union demonstrated that she met the first qualification. In the absence, however, of any other mention in the application of work experience directly relevant to this qualification we do not find that the employer failed to properly consider the grievor's application by not giving weight to this experience. It is worth mentioning that there were not any allegations of bad faith or of improper motivations in the running of this competition. It appears from the evidence that all of the applicants were treated the same in the preliminary evaluation of their qualifications. Very simply, we find on the evidence before us, that the grievor was not selected for an interview because her application did not indicate the requisite experience necessary to be considered for the position in question. 12 In the result, the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Ottawa this 14th day Of June 199 1. William Kaplan Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster