HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2961.Kubiac.91-07-29 Decision ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE CONTA RIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 OUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE OUNDAS QUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 1Z8 FA CSIMILEITELECOPIE (4 6) 326-1396
2961/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Kubiac)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community & Social Services)
Employer
BEFORE: B. Kirkwood Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson Member
M. O'Toole Member
FOR THE J. Paul
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE P. Doucette
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Ministry of Community & Social Services
HEARING June 12, 1991
2
DECISION
The parties agreed that the Board issue its
decision based upon the opening statements of each party at
the hearing. It was agreed that there was no dispute on the
evidence as presented in the opening statements.
On June 26, 1989, the grievor ' s supervisor, Mr.
Verquil met the grievor to review the grievor' s performance
for the period commencing April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989 .
Mr. Verquil presented a written performance appraisal for
that period to the grievor . We are advised that the
appraisal form included a place for signatures by the
grievor, his supervisor and the reviewer. The grievor did
not sign the written appraisal as he disagreed with some of
the comments and the Unit Director who was the reviewer, had
not signed and dated the appraisal before it was presented to
the grievor by the supervisor.
The grievor did not receive a copy of his
performance appraisal until he made an application under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
1987, to obtain copies of the document . Upon receipt of the
written performance ar -raisal he became aware that additional
comments, which were dated June 26, 1989 had been added to
the appraisal, after the meeting on June 26, 1989.
The Union 's representative claimed that the grievor
Mr. Kubiac was appraised contrary to governing principles and
standards as set out in the Ontario Manual of Administration,
and contrary to the Ministry' s own policy and guidelines on
performance appraisals when his Unit Director added comments
to the grievor ' s written performance appraisal after the
grievor had met with his supervisor to review the appraisal.
3
The employer' s counsel submitted that it was proper
for the reviewer to review and comment on the grievor ' s
performance appraisal as it was appropriate for the reviewer
to oversee the appraisal process, and he would be unable to
carry out that job function until the employee had had the
opportunity to participate in the appraisal process .
However, the employer ' s representative recognized that in
this case the Ministry had added the comments without the
grievor ' s knowledge and had failed to bring the comments to
the grievor ' s attention . Accordingly in this case, the
Ministry' s representative agreed that the grievor had been
appraised contrary to the governing principles and standards
and agreed to remove the written comments dated June 26,
1989, which were added subsequent to the appraisal meeting,
from the written appraisal.
Performance appraisals are important documents
which are used to measure the employee ' s progress over the
last year and to set out the employer' s expectations for the
upcoming year . They are also used by the employer when an
employee is being considered for promotion. If any comments
are placed on the performance appraisal by the supervisor or
anyone else without the knowledge of the employee, it
deprives the employee of the opportunity to provide his view
of the comments and should not be allowed. It can place the
employee in an unfair and prejudical position with respect to
any consideration for promotion . An employee has the right
to know the strengths and weaknesses of his performance, and
cannot be expected to improve without that knowledge .
Furthermore, it is outrageous that an employee should have to
make an application under the Freedom of Information and
Privacy Act, 1987 to obtain a copy of his appraisal .
In conclusion, the Board declares that the grievor
was appraised contrary to the governing principles and
standards as set out in the Ontario Manual of Administration
4
and hereby orders that all comments added subsequent to the
appraisal meeting be deleted from the grievor ' s written
performance appraisal .
n
Dated at Toronto, this �day of �e, 1991 .
B. A. Ki wood, Vicechairperson
I/thoyrison, Union Nominee
M. O'Toole, Ministry Nominee
2961/90
Addendum
Although I have concurred in the disposition of the
grievance, I wish to comment on an obiter statement contained in
the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 3 . In my
opinion this implies that the grievor requested and was denied by
the employer access to his appraisal. In my view the material
before the Board on this point is ambiguous with the result that
it is unclear whether the grievor asked for a copy of his
appraisal and was refused, or whether he made an application under
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, 1987 initially without
consulting his employer. However, I do not hesitate to state that
it would be outrageous if the grievor had to make an application
under the aforementioned Act to obtain a copy of his appraisal.
M. F. O'Toole - Member
July 29, 1991