Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGregory 06-02-15 ~ . , IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. BETWEEN: Grey Bruce Health Services, "the Hospital" and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 260, "the Union". AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCE OF SANDI GREGORY. AWARD ARBITRATOR: Paul Haefling APPEARANCES: For the Employer - Robert Hickman, counsel, and others. For the Union - Mitch Bevan, District Grievance Officer, and others. The hearing took place in Owen Sound on January 31,2006 ~ , AWARD The grievance filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor, Sandra Gregory, alleges that the employer bypassed her in the selection process and thereby breached the Letter of Understanding regarding appointments to Lead Hand positions. The Letter of Understanding was agreed to in recent negotiations, and the relevant portions of that Letter are as follows: Letter of Understanding Between Grey Bruce Health Services and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 260 Re: Lead Hand Positions and Premiums The Parties are agreed on the following rules with respect to Lead Hand positions in the Service Unit: 1. [Premium pay rate.] 2. [Lead hand incumbents.] 3. Lead hand assignments will be made from amongst those employees in the work unit at the work site who have expressed an interest and who are qualified to perform the lead hand duties. Lead Hand assignments may be rotational or permanent at the discretion of the manager. 4. New Lead Hand opportunities will be communicated in writing within the work unit at the site. Dated this 1s1 day of August, 2002, in the City of Owen Sound, Ontario. The Hospital operates several health facilities in the geographic area it serves but has its main campus in Owen Sound, that being the location where the grievor works as a Sterilization Processing and Distribution ("SPD") Aide and where the Lead Hand opening . , -2- arose. Ms. Gregory was hired in September of 1981 and, therefore, has accumulated almost 25 years' seniority while working at the Hospital. There was no dispute that the grievance is properly before me or that I have jurisdiction to decide the matters in issue. To their credit, the parties' representatives prepared the following joint summary which outlines the factual circumstances relating to this grievance. Agreed Statement of Facts 1. The following documents are agreed to be entered as exhibits: Grievance form Collective Agreement Grievor's application for the Lead Hand assignment including 3 letters of reference Step 1 response by direct supervisor Amos Atton-August 5, 2003 Step 2 response by Kim Bowers of HR-August 22,2003 2. In the summer of 2003 Grey Bruce Health Services (GBHS) decided to create three lead hand positions in the SPD department. 3. The position of lead hand is covered in the collective agreement in a letter of understanding at page 89. It states in part: . Lead Hand assignments will be made from amongst those employees in the work unit at the work site, who have expressed an interest and who are qualified to perform the lead hand duties. Lead Hand assignments may be rotational or permanent at the discretion of the manager. 4. Article 9.05 at pages 21-23 covers Job Posting. 5. Lead hands are paid a premium of 75 cents per hour. 6. Notification of the three lead hand positions came to the attention of the grievor and she applied. 7. Four people from within the bargaining unit (including the grievor) applied. , -3- The grievor was more senior than two of the candidates. 8. The present collective agreement is the result of an award by Kevin Whitaker. In that arbitration the Union proposed that "all lead hand positions are to be posted under the job posting provisions of the agreement, with current incumbents grandparented into their positions". Mr. Whitaker declined this proposal in his award dated November 17, 2001. 9. During the negotiation of the letter of understanding at page 89 the hospital clearly stated that it would not agree to the posting of lead hand positions under the usual job posting provisions. It stated that these assignments could not be posted as it could result in a layoff if someone from outside the department was offered the position. While the Letter of Understanding is itself silent about the method of communicating information to employees concerning openings for Lead Hand positions, the Agreed Statement of Facts refers to that by indicating that "notification of the three lead hand positions came to the attention of the grievor, and she applied". In fact, there was a hand-printed posting by the Hospital in the following words: POST SPD STAFF - OWEN SOUND SITE 3 NEW LEAD HAND ASSIGNMENTS . EMBARKING ON A LEAD-HAND PROGRAM TO COMPLEMENT CERTAIN ACTIVITY IN OVERALL DEPARTMENTAL OPERATION: . INFORMATION . INSTRUMENTATION . RESOURCES . AS PART OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, ALL DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES MUST BE MADE AWARE OF SUCH OPPORTUNITY AND EXPRESS AN INTEREST, IF ANY, FOR CONSIDERATION . PLEASE ADVISE IN WRITING BY JULY 11/03 AND I WILL ARRANGE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU -4- "A. A TTON" The above notice apparently was prepared and posted by Mr. Amos Atton, whose title is SPDI Warehouse Manager, and who also testified at this hearing. The posted notice referred to three distinct Lead Hand positions to cover three different areas or functions described above as Information, Instrumentation and Resources. The Union side acknowledged at the hearing that the person selected in respect of the "Information" Lead Hand had greater seniority than Ms. Gregory and that the person chosen for the Lead Hand" instrumentation" job had the necessary skill and experience in sharpening instruments, which the grievor did not have. However, the Union takes issue with the fact that the person selected in the "Resources" area had, at the time, considerably less bargaining-unit seniority than the grievor. Indeed, the Union takes as its position ultimately that the decision to pass over the grievor and to select another employee with less seniority was unreasonable and, more specifically, was made arbitrarily and in bad faith. The Hospital's position is that the Letter of Understanding on selection of lead Hands indicates that such choice will be made at the discretion of management and that there are no other limits or restrictions on the exercise of that discretion in the collective agreement. In the present case, the Hospital view is that the Union is seeking to create an impression by inference that the grievor was discriminated against in the selection, but the employer denies that ever occurred. In her testimony, Ms. Gregory described the SPD Aide job as work involving making up "case carts" containing drugs, gowns, instruments, needles, pans and sponges to be used by the doctors in performing different procedures and later receiving and dismantling -5- contaminated supplies in preparation for cleaning and sterilization. She also described the work of assembling instrument trays and their return for autoclave processing. She suggested that the SPD Aides supported surgeries, imaging and emergency care areas, and that all the SPD staff did the same or similar tasks in rotation. For a period of a year and a half, she had posted into the dedicated position of O.R. (Operating Room) SPD Aide and, subsequently, had applied to return to her former SPD Aide job. On returning to the latter job, but prior to her return date in February of 2003, she was required to sign a letter agreeing to work alternate weekends, "approximately nine (9) evening shifts in a four week period" and "11-7 shifts as required". Her evidence was that none of the other SPD Aides had been required to work those hours, although one individual worked the night shift by choice. She later applied on another posting for an SPD Aide position but was denied the job for the reason apparently that she was already at work in that classification. In other words, Ms. Gregory was refused a lateral transfer, and, later, after she grieved being denied the posted job, that grievance was formally resolved through the intervention of Human Resources by an undertaking that the scheduling for SPD Aides in future would create "fair and equal" shifts and by the Hospital's agreeing to rescind the letter Ms. Gregory had signed. In regard to her grievance over being denied the posted Lead Hand position, Ms. Gregory testified that she had applied formally by letter, in which she made reference to her experience and, also, for example, to her "demonstrated responsibility and quick thinking . . . in situations that have required immediate, affirmative action as well as the use of good judgment, organization and the ability to prioritize". With her application she had also included three written personal testimonial letters and work references prepared for her, one -6- by a physician, the second by the Patient Care Manager, Perioperative Services, and a third by the ambulatory patient care coordinator. Ms. Gregory suggested that, so far as she knew, in the course of the Lead Hand selection, none of her references had been consulted. She went on to say that she had spoken to Mr. Atton about the Lead Hand posting and that she had later made notes of their conversation, in the course of which, as she wrote, Mr. Atton had told her about the differences in the Lead Hand jobs and about two other prospective candidates. She also said she was told by Mr. Atton that she was "overqualified" for the job but that there might be, as she recorded, another "door/avenue" open for her at the Hospital in the future. She also wrote that he had told her he would inform her about the outcome of a decision still to be made in the Lead Hand selection. But, Ms. Gregory testified, she later learned "on the street" that she had not been selected and, from another posted note, she was made aware of the names of the three successful employees who were selected, after which she filed the present grievance. She then testified that she had personally made enquiries about the selection for other Lead Hand jobs in different areas of the Hospital. She went on to say that she had discovered that, most often, the persons who had been selected were the most senior, qualified individuals in the department. After being cross-examined on those assertions, Ms. Gregory remained insistent and unshaken that other Lead Hand jobs had gone to the senior qualified person who had shown interest. She agreed on cross-examination that Mr. Atton, as her manager, would be familiar with her abilities and work experience without having had to conduct a formal interview. The incumbent, Ms. Jamie Greve, was selected to fill the "Resource" Lead Hand -7- position sought by the grievor approximately two and one-half years prior to this hearing. She testified that she now has six years' experience working as an SPD Aide, with another 6 years' previous experience working as both a Food Services and Environmental Services supervisor at the Hospital. In addition, while testifying, she made reference to her related courses taken for certification and the fact that, as a former supervisor, she had overseen staff training and development. She also described her work as Lead Hand and as an SPD Aide, indicating that she continued to do the same job as other SPD Aides. As a Lead Hand, she testified that she has been working recently on policies and procedures for accreditation and staff re-certifications and that she had some input in departmental scheduling. She also indicated that she has served as a liaison person for staff who come to her with their work concerns. She also made reference to having made recent working tours to Wiarton, Meaford and Southampton to learn about operations at the different campuses. She agreed on cross-examination that her learning about activities at those campuses and her involvement in conferences on endoscopy and standards pertaining to mandatory re-certification arrangements took place only recently, as well as other new quality assurance undertakings occurring at the Hospital. She also agreed that all of the SPD Aides to some degree engage in staff training and, in regard to liaison with other employees, that as a Lead Hand she did not have authority to alter work schedules or to hire, fire or discipline employees. She also stated that she had been trained and given responsibilities for pay equity work, some scheduling and some computerized payroll activities in the Department. She agreed that Ms. Gregory was well-acquainted with departmental procedures and equipment and that she, too, would help to train other staff. In regard to being the liaison for staff, Ms. Greve was asked to give an example of a -8- situation in which confidentiality would not apply, in response to which she indicated that she had taken complaints to the department manager and supervisor from staff who were displeased about shift schedules. She agreed that she did not have authority to alter schedules or resolve those situations at her own initiative. The Hospital's SPD/Warehouse Supervisor, Mr. Amos Atton, testified as to his recollection of the meeting and discussion he had with Ms. Gregory about her application for a Lead Hand position. He could not recall the date of that meeting and, on cross- examination, could not recall having made a comment that she was "overqualified" for the job, but he recalled having commented to her about his being impressed at the qualifications or qualities of her references. He indicated that, during their conversation, he had mentioned to her that one of the named applicants had experience and qualifications for the Lead Hand job with responsibility for sharpening instruments and another applicant, similarly, for the information and communications Lead Hand position, both of whom were later chosen, but that he also had told Ms. Gregory no decision had yet been taken about any of the candidates at the time they had their conversation. He also recalled having told the grievor that there could be other opportunities for her in the future. He could not recall having told Ms. Gregory about Ms. Greve's having applied for the "Resources" Lead Hand position, which was the Lead Hand job of most interest to the former. He agreed that Ms. Gregory could have come away from their meeting believing that she might be selected for that position. He indicated on cross-examination, when questioned about the selection of the incumbent, that he had taken into account the previous leadership experience and qualifications of Ms. Greve and specifically the fact that she had certification for the SPD Aide job and in long-term care management. He agreed that Ms. Gregory and other -9- employees would also have been involved in matters such as staff training, pay equity and in dealing with scheduling issues in the Department. In regard to the grievance of Ms. Gregory upon her having been denied another SPD Aide posting, Mr. Atton suggested that the letter signed by the grievor with a specified shift and work schedule offered on her return from the job of O.R.S.P.D. Aide contained simply the times worked out with Human Resources and, he suggested, Ms. Gregory was given the only schedule and rotation available at the time. He also acknowledged that, when she later applied on another SPD Aide posting and was denied the lateral transfer, Ms. Gregory might have told him that she applied because she was dissatisfied with the work schedule she had been given. He agreed that the grievance resolution in that case had rendered the scheduling letter null and void and, with the involvement of Human Resources, had also led to an agreement that everyone would be on a schedule involving their working the same kinds of shift rotations. He could not recall if the grievor worked on the schedule she complained of, prior to the present grievance, or whether the resolution of the earlier grievance took place during the currency of the Lead Hand selection grievance. The employer's final witness, Mr. Rob. Croft, currently serves as Director of Hospital Services and, formerly, was the Director of Human Resources. His evidence was that the selection of Lead Hands was based on an applicant's ability to perform the job, by which he meant having the experience and skills to undertake various functions, such as giving direction to other staff when a supervisor is not present. He also suggested that a candidate needed to have a thorough knowledge of the department and its procedures and processes in order to be able to offer direction and instruction to other staff. In regard to taking seniority into account in the selection of lead Hands, Mr. Croft suggested that might be -10- taken into account as a "tie breaker" but that, in his experience, such a selection had never occurred. He also cited examples and disagreed with the suggestion made by the Union that, in the selection of Lead Hands, the Hospital had always ended up choosing the most senior applicants. He also suggested that, in making a selection, references would not likely be needed because, in his experience, the supervisor or manager knew all of the employees who might apply for a Lead Hand position. In argument for the Union, Mr. Bevan submits that, while the Hospital asserts it has an unfettered discretion in selecting candidates for Lead Hand positions, that is not the case because in a situation like this an employer must act reasonably and not in an arbitrary manner. Here, the Union argues, the decision to bypass the grievor and to select the incumbent was unreasonable because it was unfair and made in bad faith. The comments of Mr. Atton indicating that he believed the latter's experience as a manager made her the better candidate than the grievor, who lacked such managerial experience, Mr. Bevan suggests, is belied by the fact that, in two and a half years since the selection was made, the incumbent has barely started to undertake the kinds of job responsibilities, such as the Quality Assurance Program, that were .said to belong to the Resources Lead Hand. While the Hospital maintains that the incumbent would have responsibility to train staff, the evidence of witnesses from the employer side was that all SPD Aides from time to time undertake to train departmental staff. In addition, Mr. Bevan argues, while Mr. Atton and the incumbent mentioned parti,cipating jointly in departmental scheduling, on close questioning the evidence was that the latter might check the schedule after it was prepared but she did not have authority to make changes in the schedule when employees came to her with complaints. In fact, the majority of the Lead Hand's activities involved her working as an -11- SPD Aide, the same as the grievor, who, Mr. Bevan submits, with 25 years' experience in the Department, would know more about the job and the policies and procedures of the Department and be able to offer more help to staff than someone with less than three years' experience at the time the selection was made. The grievor's written application and the reference letters and testimonials she provided all show that she had the experience and knowledge and the kind of commitment and personal qualities needed for the job; whereas, Mr. Bevan points out, when the incumbent applied she had merely written to indicate her interest in the posted Lead Hand position. All of that, it is argued, serves to demonstrate that the Lead Hand selection was arbitrary and that for the Hospital to deny the grievor the opportunity to undertake the job was unreasonable. In regard to the discussion between Mr. Atton and Ms. Gregory, Mr. Bevan suggests that it made no sense that the supervisor would not recall having said to the grievor that she was "over-qualified" but he could recall having made some comment to the effect that her references seemed overqualified. The fact that Mr. Atton spoke to Ms. Gregory about the two other Lead Hand applicants who were later selected for the sharpening job and the information/communications job, the Union suggests, is evidence that the posting and selection had been a "set-up" and that a decision had already been made when the conversation took place. Mr. Bevan also points to the letter the grievor was required to sign when she came back to the Department from O.R. as an SPD Aide as some evidence of animus and bad faith in the Hospital's treatment of the grievor. That is, the Union argues, the grievorwas discriminated against by being compelled to work the schedule Mr. Atton said needed to be filled, although no other employees worked such a schedule, until such time as the filing of her grievance which led ultimately to the letter's being rescinded after -12- the Human Resources office intervened. The Union argues that, based on the timing, Ms. Gregory had first been discriminated against by the Hospital prior to the resolution of the scheduling grievance, and, subsequently, also when she sought but was denied the Lead Hand job in part to escape from the previous onerous work schedule. To add to all that, Mr. Bevan argues, one must consider the fact that she received almost no consideration for the Lead Hand job as further evidence of bad faith in her treatment by the Hospital. The Union in argument made reference to the case of Re Cape Breton-Victoria Regional School Board and Nova Scotia Teachers Union (2004),127 LAC. (41h) 110 (Kydd) and, more generally, to Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration, par. 5:2300 The Requirement of Bona Fides, as follows: . . . in filling vacancies and making transfers, promotions and demotions, management's initiative is subject to the overriding qualification that its decision be in good faith, and not arbitrary or discriminatory. Again, however, where it is established that the decision was effected in good faith, it would be of no consequence to allege that the action taken, such as a transfer to a lower-rated job, was simply for the Company's convenience or was merely unreasonable. In the Cape-Breton Victoria Regional School Board case, at p. 123, the arbitrator referred to and relied upon Nova Scotia Civil Service Commission v. N.S.G.E.U. (1993), 123 N.S.R. (2d) 217, an earlier decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, for the proposition that there is "an implied duty of reasonableness in the exercise of rights under a collective agreement". The arbitrator also observed that the Court had indicated as well that, if a union is able to meet the burden of proving that an employer's decision was unreasonable, being "one that a reasonable person possessed of the facts and exercising common sense would not reach," an arbitrator need not defer to the employer's decision. In the present case, Mr. Bevan argues, the unreasonableness and unfairness of the Employer's decision resulting -13- in denying the grievor the opportunity to perform in the Lead Hand position cries out for a remedy. In argument for the Hospital, Mr. Hickman points to both the wording of the Letter of Understanding and the Agreed Statement of Facts as indicating that, while the Union had endeavoured during the last set of negotiations to have the job-posting provision of the collective agreement (article 9.05) apply in regard to the selecting of Lead Hands, that was not the outcome from the negotiations arising out of the interest arbitration award. The Union and the Hospital subsequently agreed instead on the Letter of Understanding. It provides only that Lead Hands are to be selected and assigned from among those employees "who have expressed an interest and who are qualified to perform the lead hand duties". The Union had suggested that the Hospital's discretion in selecting candidates for Lead Hand positions is fettered in Article 5-Reservation of Management Rights, and specifically through paragraph (d), which refers to the employer's right "to make, alter and enforce reasonable rules and regulations to be observed by the employees and not otherwise contrary to this Agreement" and to the fact that "such shall not be discriminatory," but iUs the Hospital's position here that there is no discrimination in this case. In paragraph 5(e), the Hospital management's right "to hire, . . . promote, . . . transfer. . . employees" is subject only to the proviso that a "discriminatory" promotion or transfer "may become subject of a grievance" and, counsel suggests, that coincides with the Brown and Beatty extract indicating that employer decisions that are made "in bad faith, arbitrarily or discriminatorily" may be challenged. However, Mr. Hickman points out, in the same extract, the editors also declare that employer decisions or actions taken in good faith in cases like this may not be challenged or should not be regarded as being unreasonable. Thus, -14- counsel argues, the exercise of management's discretion in a case such as this can only be fettered by some clear and express language, if any, that must be found in the collective agreement. In the case here, counsel submits that, under the collective agreement, the Union has the onus to establish that there was discrimination against the grievor. On the contrary, Mr. Hickman argues, there has been no testimony by any Hospital witness here that could be taken as denying that the grievor is a capable employee or as denigrating her skill, ability and work as an SPD Aide in the Department. Here, Mr. Atton testified for the Hospital about how and why the selections were made for all three Lead Hand positions. As well, Mr. Hickman argues, even if it might be said that the selection process could have been better or longer, or thatthe Hospital, for example, could or should have pursued the grievor's references, that does not alter the fact that in this case because of the size of the operation the supervisor involved, Mr. Atton, knows all of the employees and about their. experience levels and capabilities. There is, Mr. Hickman submits, quite simply nothing in the evidence before the arbitrator to prove that any decision by the Hospital in the Lead Hand selections was arbitrary or discriminatory. Further, counsel suggests, there is no onus on the employer to establish that the incumbents selected for any of those jobs was superior or more qualified than the grievor. The Union in this case also failed to establish any evidence to demonstrate that the Hospital is somehow obligated to select the senior applicant for a Lead Hand position, and, Mr. Hickman argues, in the situation here, the Hospital's only obligation ended when it determined that the candidate it chose is a person qualified for the particular Lead Hand job. In so doing, it must not discriminate, and, while the Union here has attempted to suggest that the work schedule applying on the grievor's return to the Department from O.R. was . -15- discriminatory, Mr. Hickman submits that the evidence of Mr. Atton on the point was that the shift schedule she got was all that was available in the Department at the time. Once the grievor's scheduling issue was grieved, the Hospital agreed on a rotation that would be fairer to the grievor and shared in by everyone in the Department, but, Mr. Hickman argues, that did not mean that the Hospital had earlier dealt with the grievor in a discriminatory fnanner. As a result, the Hospital takes the position that, in this case, the Union failed to satisfy the onus to show that there was discrimination as a basis to challenge the Lead Hand selection. In a job-posting or a job-selection case, the task of an arbitrator when reviewing an employer's decision is to ensure that the applicable terms of the collective agreement have been properly and correctly applied1. In the case here, the Agreed Statement of Facts indicates that the parties share an understanding about the fact that, as a result of negotiation following the Whitaker award, the usual job-posting arrangements in the collective agreement do not apply in regard to the selection of applicants for Lead Hand positions. That is to say, the normal selection procedures outlined in article 9.05 in effect have been set aside. In particular, in the case here, the approach normally taken and the usual requirement (article 9.05) that, "in matters of promotion and staff transfer appointment shall be made ofthe senior applicant able to meet the normal requirements of the job," does not apply in the matter of selecting and appointing persons at the Hospital for the job of a Lead Hand. It is entirely likely or quite possible that, if the usual selection criteria had 1 Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1976), 11 LAC. (2d) 291 (Brandt), quashed 76 CLLC 14,056 sub nom. Canadian Food & Allied Workers Union, Local 175 v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (Div. Ct), leave to appeal to C.A. refused 13 LAC. (2d) 211 n. . -16- applied, Ms. Gregory, based on her seniority, might have been chosen for one of the three Lead Hand positions in August of 2003. As matters stand, however, it is important to recognize that the Hospital is not required to consider as a factor in the selection the seniority status of applicants for a Lead Hand job. The letter of Understanding concerning the selection of a Lead Hand merely provides that the selection "will be made from amongst those employees in the work unit at the work site, who have expressed an interest and are qualified to perform the lead hand duties". It does not state, for example, that the Hospital must choose, as between two or more applicants, which person is more qualified or better qualified to do the work. In other words, in this instance there is no competition among or between employees and no requirement that the employer should compare or try to weigh one candidate's potential against another's. The seniority principle is one of the most important and significant job measures and protections employees are given under a collective-bargaining regime. Seniority is measured by length of service with an employer, and it may also be used to recognize higher monetary entitlement and greater levels of skill and ability based upon the amount of on-the-job experience an individual has gained. While in general arbitrators recognize seniority and length of service as a mechanism creating greater entitlement for experienced employees, in this case as the arbitrator I cannot simply award a job to the grievor as being the more senior applicant. Nor can this arbitrator say in this case that by virtue of her seniority Ms. Gregory should have been chosen as the more experienced applicant for the job of a Lead Hand by simply substituting a personal judgment for that of the employer representatives involved in the job-selection process. All of that is so because the arrangement now in place for the selection of Lead Hands is not one that must of necessity > . , -17- give weight or preference to the factor of seniority. Hence, the Union in this case has found it necessary to rest its argument solely on the basis of suggesting that the decision made here was unreasonable, in the sense that it was made arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith. The evidence from both sides about whether or not a practice had grown up at the Hospital whereby Lead Hands were chosen by looking to the most senior, qualified applicants was, at best, equivocal. The Union here argued vigorously that Ms. Gregory had been discriminated against by her supervisor in being bypassed for the Lead Hand job by virtue of the earlier situation in which she had been required on her return to the Department to sign the letter agreeing to a specified work schedule. The Hospital's answer on that point was that the grievor was placed on that work schedule because it was the only work schedule open to be filled at the time. The evidence is clear that, when Ms. Gregory later grieved about not being allowed to post into another SPA Aide job with a preferable and, for her, better, schedule, that grievance was resolved in good faith, effectively by reorganizing the overall Departmental schedule. The only connection between the circumstances giving rise to that grievance and the present one, and to which the Union drew attention, is the fact that the timing of the two grievances in some degree coincided and that, in both situations, Mr. Atton was involved as the grievor's supervisor. However, I find that both the timing and the connection suggested by the Union as evidence of bad faith are tenuous at best and would necessitate drawing inferences that, when viewed objectively, the facts and evidence here simply do not support. Similarly, the suggestion that the incumbent had limited responsibilities as a Lead Hand since being appointed cannot support an inference that diminishes her competence in the job; nor would it enhance the grievor's chances of succeeding had she I . -18- been appointed instead. That. evidence suggests perhaps that the Lead Hand responsibilities are evolving and increasing. Both parties recognized that Mr. Atton knew the employees in the Department and, thus, was well acquainted with their backgrounds and experience. Hospital witnesses never suggested that Ms. Gregory is in any way lacking in competence or experience. In any event, this is not a case in which the selection process pitted the grievor, Ms. Gregory, against the incumbent, Ms. Greve, or required the Hospital to compare the two in making the selection. In giving his reasons for choosing Ms. Greve, Mr. Atton testified that, among other things, he considered the latter's previous experience as a supervisor in the respective departments in which she had worked as an indication of her leadership skills, and that such considerations led to the choice that he made. I find here that the Union has not met its evidentiary burden to demonstrate circumstances or facts showing evidence of bad faith. In this case, the Hospital is left with wide discretion in the selection of candidates for Lead Hand jobs, and there is no convincing evidence to indicate that the choice made in selecting the incumbent was unreasonable in the sense argued for by the Union. I am unable to conclude here that the grievor was treated in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner or that there was any bad faith. It follows, then, that the grievance must fail, and it is hereby dismissed. Dated at Elora the 151h day of February, 2006.