HomeMy WebLinkAboutRobinson 05-15-07
,~
\
,>
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
=-<;-"""'--..,
~ LECr! ùvræ Œ)
BETWEEN: JUN 2 1 2C~5
---------------
LAKERIDGE HEALTH CORPORATION
(the "Employer")
- and -
OPSEU,LOCAL348
(the "Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF GAIL ROBINSON
OPSEU File No. 03-348-015
AWARD
ARB ITRA TOR: Paula Knopf
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer Carolyn L. Kay, Counsel
For the Union Anne Lee, Grievance Officer
A hearing in this matter was held in Oshawa, Ontario on June 15, 2005.
t
. '.
This is a job posting grievance. The incumbent was given notice of these
proceedings and elected to participate.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties invited this Arbitrator to engage in
a mediation/arbitration process in an effort to resolve this matter. This was a very
appropriate approach to this case, given that the grievance is dated November
21, 2002, and given that the rights of several valued employees were at stake.
As a result of the mediation/arbitration effort, several critical and
undisputed facts were established, including:
);- The job posting is for a Registered Technologist in the
Histopathology Laboratory.
);- The posted qualifications included:
1. Current theoretical and technical knowledge in the discipline
of Histology, and
2. Recent working experience in the Histopathology Laboratory.
Both the grievor and the incumbent have the necessary qualifications for the
position. They have the professional recognition of the College of Medical
Laboratory Technologists of Ontario and they have recent experience in the
Histopathology Laboratory.
There are only two significant differences between the incumbent and the
grievor. The first difference relates to their histological experience. The grievor,
Gail Robinson, worked in the Histopathology Laboratory from July 1999 to
October 2000, covering for a leave of absence. The incumbent, Sandra
Faulkner, had 12 years of direct experience in Histology at the time of this
competition. The second difference is that Ms. Robinson had 17 years' seniority
at this Hospital, whereas Ms. Faulkner was a casual employee whose seniority
status does not begin to compare to the grievor's.
.
,~
.
2
The Union argued that the grievor's greater seniority should have resulted
in the Hospital awarding the position to the grievor. The Employer asserted that
the incumbent's greater experience in the field of Histology justified the decision
to award the job to her.
The operative provision in the Collective Agreement is:
Article 13.06
In filling posted vacancies the selection shall be made based on
skill, abilitY,~experience and relevar:ltqualifications ofthe applicants.
Where these factors are relatively equal, bargaining unit seniority
shall be the governing factor.
Even if one assumes that the grievor and the incumbent had relatively
equal skill and qualifications for the position, there can be no doubt that the
incumbent had far greater experience in the relevant field. This Collective
Agreement has a "competitive" clause, where bargaining unit seniority only
becomes relevant when the other factors are equal. In this case, the experience
factor is not equal - the incumbent's experience far outweighs that of the
grievor's. Therefore, the grievance must fail.
However, the parties addressed other issues in this proceeding in an
exemplary fashion to deal with labour relations issues that could be affected by a
case like this one. To this end, they have entered into Minutes of Settlement
dated June 15, 2005. Pursuant to my jurisdiction in this matter, I declare that the
parties are bound by those Minutes of Settlement. I retain jurisdiction should the
parties require further assistance.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of June, 2005.