Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJackson 13-11-11IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT KINGSTON GENERAL HOSPITAL ( "the Employer") AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ARBITRATOR: EMPLOYER COUNSEL: UNION COUNSEL: ( "the Union ") GRIEVANCE RE LYNDA JACKSON 2012 -0444 -0013 AWARD BARRY STEPHENS PETER HASS, Human Resources Advisor, KGH PEGGY SMITH, Counsel, Peggy E. Smith Law Office BEV WEAVER, OPSEU Local 444 Bargaining Unit President INCUMBENT: DAVID MARKOTICH HEARINGS HELD BY TELECONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 1, 2013 AWARD Introduction [1] This grievance relates to the grievor's unsuccessful application for a job competition for the position of Clinical CRD /RAD Therapist, run in January 2012. The incumbent, David Markotich, was given proper notice of the arbitration and participated in the teleconference hearing on his own behalf. After discussing the matter with the parties it became apparent that there were obvious defects in the job posting process that would require the rerunning of the job interview process in that the interview panel had not kept separate notes or scoring of the candidates. I note that the parties addressed this process issue previously, and they reached agreement in that case that failure to retain separate scoring of the candidates did not meet the level of fairness and objectivity necessary for the integrity of the interview process. [2] After reaching my conclusions about the facts, it was my view that the interests of the parties were best served by proceeding directly to the rerunning of the interview process, rather than engaging in a lengthy hearing. The parties did not object to this approach. [3] As a result, I order as follows: 1. The following documents are to be removed from the grievor's permanent employee file: a. Letter dated July 26th, 2007 (2 pages) b. Employee Termination Form dated March 19th, 2010 2. Job competition for Clinical Crd /Rad Therapist held in January of 2012 will be re- run. The existing list of applicants from the original posting will be used. The process used in the re -run will meet the established standards for measuring skill, ability, qualification and experience. 3. The grievor will be provided with an Educational Allowance of seven thousand ($7000.00), without statutory deductions. Said monies are for the exclusive use of the grievor in personal developmental opportunities. A general accounting of those monies is to be provided to the appropriate HR Advisor every 6 months until the monies are exhausted. 4. If required, requests for time clearances for the aforementioned developmental opportunities are to be submitted to the appropriate HR Advisor for presentation to the operating department. 5. Arbitrator Stephens remains seized with regards to any specific issue related to fair and reasonable access to educational opportunities, and the general disposition of the matters at hand. Conclusion [4] The grievance is upheld in accordance with the above order, and I retain jurisdiction as set in paragraph 5 therein. Barry Stephen , rbitrator November 11, 2013 2