HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0142.Misir.90-01-03 ONKYO EMPLOYES DE ~ COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ON~RIO
GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1~-SU1~ 21~ TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE
180. RUE DUNDAS OUES~ TORONT~ (ON~RI~ MSG IZ8-BUR~U21~ ~I~ $~-0~8
142/88
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (June Misir)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Minis. try of Health)
Employer
Before: N.V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson
J. McManus Member
M. O'Toole Member
For the Grievor: C. Paliare
Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer: R. Anderson
Personnel Officer
Ministry of Health
M. Bay
M. Quick
Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Ministry of Health
Hearings: August 11, 1988
January 20, 27, 1989
August, 1, 1989
DECISION
This is a job competition grievance wherein the grievor,
Ms. June Misir, alleges that the Employer awarded the position
of Revenue Control Supervisor at its Revenue Operations Unit
of Insurance Accounting at Kingston, Ontario, to a more junior
employee, contrary to article 4.03 of the collective
agreement. That article reads:
"In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give
primary consideration to qualifications and ability
to perform the required duties. Where
qualifications and ability are relatively equal,
length of continuous service shall be a
consideration."
The successful candidate, Ms. Lori Williams, was given
proper notice of this hearing, but did not participate except
as a witness called by the Employer. She had approximately
three years less seniority than the grieuor. Following job
interviews, the selection panel placed Ms. Williams first with
79.31%, while the grievor came in third with 59.22%. The
Union claims that the selection process was flawed in a number
of ways. In addition, it is alleged that there was actual,
or at least perceived bias on the part of certain members of
the selection panel in favour of Ms. Williams. It is the
Union's position that the grievor's qualifications and ability
to perform the duties of the position were relatively equal
and that therefore she should have been awarded the position
in accordance with article
The relevant portion of the job posting for the position
in question reads:
The Revenue Operations Uni% of Insurance Accounting,
Finance an4 Accounting Branch, requires a highly
motivated,, well organized individual to supervise
and coordinate the activities of the Revenue Control
sub-unit which controls and investigates the
recording of CHIP Premium Payments and t~e update
of subscribed/group accounts.
QUALIFICATIONS: Previous supervisory experience in
a high volume financial environment. Proven ability
to motivate and instruct subordinate staff.
Experience in developing effective administrative
procedures. Knowledge of Government Accounting and
Banking procedures. Strong organizational and
planning skills. Working knowledge of personal
computers with emphasis on software package LOTUS
1-2-2. Excellent oral and written communications.
On the. basis of applications received, the Human
Resources Branch selected eight candidates for interviews.
The selection panel consisted of three persons. The chair-
person was Ms. Norah Sandland, Manager of the Revenue
Operations Unit. Ms. Sally Kelly, a Human Resource Specialist
was the second pane~ member. The third member was Mr. Brian
Kimberley, Director of the Finance and Accounting Branch of
the Ministry. His office was in Toronto and became involved
in this selection process in an unusual way. After being
appointed as Director, Mr. Kimberley informed unit heads that
he wished to participate in the hiring of a few supervisory
4
positions in order to get a first-hand look at the process.
This job competition happened to be one of two he decided to
attend. Ms. Sandland prepared fifteen oral questions and one
written question and weighted them between 1 to 5. Just prior
to the interviews, Mr. Kimberley added a 17th question and
allocated to it a weight of 10 marks.
The Union led evidence .in support of its allegation of
bias. Ms. Williams conceded that she went for drinks and for
lunch with Ms. Sandland. When asked if she was a good friend,
Ms. Williams stated that it depends on how a good friend is
defined. Despite Ms. Sandland's insistence that her
relationship with Ms. Williams'was no different from her
relationship with other employees, we find that Ms. Williams
and Ms. Sandland had a special friendship beyond the normal
employer-employee relationship.
The Union also led evidence relating to a prior
competition held in October 1987 for the positions of Group
Leader Data Management and Group Leader Encore Operations.
The candidates were interviewed by a panel, which was also
chaired by Ms. Sandland. Ms. Williams and the grievor were
among the candidates. The documentary evidence shows that
while the other two panel members were almost identical in
their marking of Ms. Williams, Ms. Sandland had given her some
fifty five marks more than the others. Ms. Sandland also
marked the grievor lower than either of the other panel
members. Based on the average marks, MS. Williams was placed
first and the grievor was fourth. Ms. Williams ~as thus
offered the first choice and she selected the position of
Group Leader Data. Management. The candidate who placed second
was offered the other position but declined. The candidate
who came in third accepted that position. That~candidate had
lesser seniority than the grieVor, and had scored a mere 2.3%
higher than the grievor. The evidence indicates that in
applying article 4.3, the Ministry followed a rule of thumb,
which requires the senior employee to be awarded the job if
she is within 10% of an employee with lesser seniority. Thus,
if this rule had been applied, the grievor should have been
offered the Encore Operations position before the candidate·
who placed third. While this was not done initially, the
grievor was ultimately awarded the job. The Employer
witnesses testified that the third candidate was awarded the
job as a result of a mistake. Ms. Sandland testified that at
the time she was unaware of the "10 percent rule" and Ms.
Paulette Vickory, the Human Resources representative on the
selection panel, testified that by the time she got to the
third candidate, she simply forgot about the "10 percent
rule". While the Employer witnesses would have us believe
that the error was discovered and corrected by the Employer
on its own initiative, the documentary evidence, particularly
exhibit #6 filed in reply, pro~es beyond doubt that the
6
decision was reversed only after the filing of a grievance by
the grievor and a discussion of that grievance.
The jurisprudence of the Grievance Settlement Board has
set out the expected standards for properly conducting a job
competition. In Maclelland and DeGrandis, (G.S.B. 506, 507,
609, 691/81, Samuels) at page 25, the Board. itemized the
requirements as follows:
The jurisprudence of this Board has established
various criteria by which to judge a selection
process:
1. Candidates must be evaluated on all the
relevant qualifications for the job as set out
in the Position Specification.
2. The various methods' used to assess the
candidates should address these relevant
qualifications insofar as is possible. For
example, interview questions and evaluation
forms should cover all the qualifications.
3. Irrelevant factors should not be considered.
4. All members of a selection committee should
review the personnel files of all the
applicants.
5. The applicants' supervisors should be asked for
their evaluations of the applicants.
6. Information should be accumulated in a
systematic way concerning all the
applicants ....
While the Board has set out the foregoing criteria, it
has not insisted on perfection before approving a selection
process. In Saras. (G.S.B. 457/85, Swan) the Board observed
at p. 9:
The Union was able to point to a number of flaws in
the selection process in this case, but as counsel
for the Employer rightly observed, it is possible
to pick holes in almost any process run by mere
mortal human beings.
In upholding the Employer's selection process, the Board
stated at p.13:
...while we may not be happy with everything that
happened in the course of the selection, we have
come to the conclusion that the process as a whole
was not unfair nor was it calculated to lead to an
unfair result. We have also concluded that on a
somewhat larger body of evidence placed before us'
at-the hearing, and on an objective basis Ms. P.
was in fact better qualified for the specific job
at issue then was the grievor.
With those general principles in mind, we now turn to the
case at hand. The Union suggested that none of the panel
members reviewed the personnel files of Ms. Williams or of the
grievor. The Employer's evidence was thJt following the
interviews, Ms. Sandland and Ms. Kelly reviewed the files of
the top three or four candidates. Thus it is conceded that
Mr. Kimberley did not at any time review the personnel files.
Also, it is. the uncontradicted evidence that none of the
panel' members spoke to Mr. Chang, who was the direct
supervisor of both Ms. Williams and the grievor. Ms. Sandland
testified that Mr. Chang reported to her and that therefore
she would have been aware of any information he may have had
8
to offer. It should be noted that Mr. Chang was not called
to testify.
The candidates had filed their resumes. The evidence
indicates t~at Mr. Kimberl¥ could not have reviewed these in
any meaningful way, if at ail. Ms. Kelly testified that Mr.
Kimberley did not have the resumes with him during the
interviews, and that he only had the score sheets. Mr.
Kimberley could recall that he received copies of the resumes
prior to the interviews, but could not recall if he took them
to the interview. Ms. Sandland testified that Mr. Kimberley
had copies of the resumes at the interviews and that he
reviewed the applicable resume "as each candidate came in".
Even if Ms. Sandland's version of the evidence is accepted,
in our view that would at most have permitted a cursory
glance.
The Board has held in a number of decisions that a
competition is flawed where there is a failure to consult the
supervisor of the candidates and to review the personnel
files. See, ~uinn G.S.B. 9/78; Hoffman G.S.B. 22/70; Leslie,
G.S.B. 126/79; and ~cNamara G.S.B. 272/81. In Poole, G.S.B.
2508/87 (samuels), the Board reasoned as follows:'
At the interviews,~ a series of questions were
asked of each candidate to elicit information
concerning the candidates qualifications and
experience. A~d then the candi~ates were scored on
these answers, without any regard to the information
on the application forms, or information which might
have been found in perso-~el files, or information
£rom the applicants' supervisors at the Hospital,
Apparently it ,is Ministry policy to base its
decision entirely.on the scores at the interview.
If this'is the Ministry's policy, then it is
absolutely incomprehensible to us why it shouldbe
so. This job competition had to be done according
to the collective agreement. Article 4.3 provides:
In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give
primary consideration to qualifications and
ability to perform the required duties. Where
qualifications and. ability are re'latively
equal, length of continuous service ~hall be
a consideration.
And this Board' has explained in detail many times
what is required to fulfil the requirements of
Article 4.3...
There must be a full gathering of information
concerning the qualifications and ability of the
applicants. It is not satisfactory to consciously
ignore information as was~ done here. For some
reason, the grievor did not do well at the
interview.., and the three members of the panel were
left with the impression that the successful
applicant had better qualifications and experience
than the grievor.
(original emphasis)
In the case at hand none of the panel members consulted
with the supervisor. The Board requires such consultation for
the simple reason that the person who has day-to-day direct
supervision is likely to have pertinent and persuasive
information as to the employee's qualifications, abilities and
work habits. Ms. Sandland, who had no direct-supervision over
the employees could not have had direct knowledge of those
factors. Alternatively~ it is possible that she was familiar
10
with Ms. Williams' because of her social acquaintance, but not
with the grievor. In either event there is serious cause for
concern.
Thus the evidence establishes the following: (1) None of
the panel members consulted the employees' supervisor. (2)
At least one panel member did not review the Personnel files.
(3) One member did not review the resumes of the candidates
in any meaningful way, if he did so at all.
If we had any doubts as to whether these procedural flaws
per se are sufficient to render the selection process
improper, those doubts are removed when these flaws are seen
in light of some other aspects of the evidence which we find
to be most disturbing. As a starting point, we have already
concluded that the chairperson of the selection panel had a
social relationship with the successful candidate. This Board
is not prepared to stipulate as a general rule that where any
manager, who has some social inter-action with an employee,
serves on a selection panel, there necessarily will be an
inference of actual or perceived bias in favour of that
employee. The Board will have to consider all of the
circumstances including the availability of other qualified
management personnel to serve on the selection panel.
However, where a manager elects to serve on the panel despite
having a special relationship with one or more of the
11
candidates, and allegations of favouritism are made, the Board
has an obligation to closely scrutinize the selection process
in order to determine if those allegations are well-founded.
The Employer must then be able to demonstrate in some
objective fashion that the procedure was fair and reasonable.
On the basis of the evidence we heard, we cannot be assured
at all that the selection procedure that resulted in the
awarding of the position to Ms. Williams was fair or
reasonable.
Ms. Sandland was not only a member of the panel,~but was
its chair-person. In that capacity she decided what questions
to ask and what weight to attach to those questions. She had
control of how the interviews are run. As the "technical
expert", Ms. Sandland was the only person who evaluated the
question that required a written answer. The other panel
members simply adopted the mark determined by Ms. Sandland.
We are satisfied that as the Chair-person of the panel and as
the person who had the most knowledge about the job.and the
applicants, Ms..Sandland's views would have. influenced the
other members to a greater or lesser degree. As far as the
employees are concerned, Ms. Williams testified that Ms.
Sandland had informed her in advance that she would be
chairing the selection panel. The grievor did not have that
information.
12
Prior to the interviews, Ms. Sandland prepared the
questions to be asked at the interviews, assigned weights and
also prepared suggested answers for each question. The Board
had the benefit of reviewing the notes taken at the
interviews. Usually, the Board would be reluctant to closely
examine the marking of panel members, who we must assume know
more about the subject matter'than we do. However, in the
circumstances here where there is evidence suggesting possible
bias and favouritism, such scrutiny is unavoidable. To not
do so is to deny the grievor an opportunity to prove her
allegation of bias.
What follows is an examination of some of the questions
and answers of the two employees, which the Union used to
substantiate its claim of bias on the part of Ms. Sandland and
Ms. Kelly in their marking.
Question No. 2 reads:
(2) What do you think of performance appraisals and tell
us how you conducted them with the employees you supervised.
The suggested answer is - look for actual experience in
conducting appraisals and for how many years.
Ms. William told the selection panel that she had not
prepared a performance appraisal nor conducted one, but that
13
she had input into the preparation of an appraisal. The
grievor replied that she had in fact prepared a performance
appraisal and sat in at the appraisal interview. Ms. Sandland
and Ms. Kelly both gave the grievor 5/10 and Ms. Williams
8/10. When Ms. Kelly was asked to explain in cross-
examination, she stated that despite the grievor.~s answer, she
assumed that, like Ms. Williams, the grievor also had simply
had some input into the preparation of an appraisal'. She
admitted that she assumed that without even questioning the
grievor. At this proceeding no evidence was led to suggest
that the grievor'S answer was untruthful nor was the grievor
cross-examined about that.
(3) How frequently should you discuss job performance
with an employee?
The suggested answer is - As often as necessary.
Both the grievor and Ms. Williams gave the exact
suggested answer. Ms. Sandland and Ms. Kelly gave Ms.
Williams a perfect score, while the grievor got 8/10. Their
explanation during testimony was that the suggested answers
are guidelines only and not the complete answer. However,
even if that was the intention we find on the basis of their
own notes that the two answers are almost indistinguishable.
Ms. Williams went on to say that it is important to present
positive as well as negative feed back. The grievor stated
14
that if the employee is doing a good job the supervisor should
let it be known.
A more glaring example of inconsistent marking is with
respect to question no. 4.
(4) What experience have you had in the selection
process for hiring new employees.
The suggested answer is - sat on selection board.
The grievor indicated that she had sat on a selection
board for hiring a part-time employee in the government
service. Ms. Williams had no experience of hiring in the
government service at all. Her only experience related to
the time when she was in university where she participated in
the hiring of a student for a student body of which she was
a member. Despite the fact that that was a process totally
unrelated to the hiring process in the government, and had
occurred some years ago, Mr. Kelly gave the grievor 4/10 and
Ms. Williams 6/10. Ms. Sandland gave the grievor 3/lO and Ms.
Williams 6/10.
Next we refer to Question no. 10 the content of which is
irrelevant. Ms. Williams' own testimony, corroborated by Mr.
Kimberley's evidence, is that when the question was asked she
could not answer it and asked if she could come back to it
later. Ms. Williams testified that when the question was
15
asked later, she "fumbled over it". Ms. Sandland and Ms.
Kelly scored her 9/10 and 8/10 respectively. Under cross-
examination Ms. Williams testified that she was surprised that
she got those marks, and that she would have expected 5/10 for
her answer.
Finally, we refer to Question no. 13 Which asked the
candidates to "Describe how you organized and planned one
specific project?' Did it get implemented and with what
results?"
Both the grievor and Ms. Williams referred to a similar
experience, namely, a project to clear a 'back-log. Ms.
Sandland scored the grievor 0/10 and Ms. Williams 6/10. Ms.
Kelly's scores were 2/10 for the grievor and 8/10 for Ms.
Williams. Ms. Kelly's explanation was that Ms. Williams had
"started from scratch" and had prepared the procedures for the
project, while in the grievor's case' the procedures for the
project were already in place. When asked how she knew that
the procedures were in place for the grievor, Ms. Kelly
replied that Ms. Sandland told her that. She conceded that
she had not asked the grievor about that. Nor did she verify
the situation from the grievor's supervisor. Once again the
grievor was not cross-examined on this issue nor did the
Employer lead any evidence to substantiate its distinction
between the two Projects. We note that Mr. Kimberley
16
initially scored the grievor 9/10 and Ms. Williams 8/10 on
this question. However, the grievor's mark was subsequently
changed to 6/10.
Now we turn to another aspect of the evidence. As
already noted the actual question sheets used by Ms. Sandland
and Ms. Kelly were filed in evidence. Ms. Kelly's sheet for
Ms. Williams indicates a mark beside each of the questions.
A number of marks are changed by writing over. Union counsel
questioned Ms. Kelly on the changes which could be deciphered.
Ms. Kelly conceded that she had adjusted Ms. Williams' marks
upward in those instances, but explained that it is not
unusual for her to go back and adjust marks after all of the
interviews are comDleted. In contrast, Ms. Kelly's question
sheet for the grievor does not indicate a mark for nine of the
fifteen questions. Nevertheless, Ms. Kelly insisted that she
followed her usual practice of giving a mark after each
question is answered. Her explanation was that she noted the
grievor's marks for those particular questions on a separate
piece of paper and felt tired at the time to transpose them
to the question sheet. Of the six questions which had a mark
noted on the grievor's question sheet, two had been changed.
In each case the adjustment .is downward.
Now we turn our attention to Mr. Kimberley. For reasons
which will be elaborated later in this decision, we are
l?
satisfied that he made no notes during the interviews. 'Both
Ms. Sandland and Ms. Kelly vividly recalled that at the end
of all the interviews they noticed with alarm that Mr.
Kimberley's marking was substantially more generous and
completely "out of whack". They raised this .with him and
requested that he re-do his marking to bring it into line with
their marks. Ms. Sandland testified that when the matter was
raised, Mr. Kimberley attributed his generous marking to his
past experience as a teacher. Both Ms, Sandland and Ms. Kelly
testified that he agreed to lower his marks and took his
sheets home. The evidence was that he returned the adjusted
score sheets to Ms. Sandland the following morning. His score
~sheet for the grievor indicates that the marks for four
questions were adjusted - in each case the adjustment is
downward. In direct contradiction of the evidence of Ms.
Sandland and Ms. Kelly, Mr, Kimberley denied that anyone
raised any concern about his marks being too high. ~e
vehemently denied that he took any score sheets with him
overnight and insisted that the grievor's marks were adjusted
on his own initiative and that this was done soon after the
interviews had been completed. Another troubling aspect of
this evidence, is the fact that Mr. Kimberley's score sheet
for Ms. Williams does not contain any adjustments at all. Ms.
Sandland and Ms. Kelly were unable to explain why Ms.
Williams' score sheet had no changes and the grievor's did,
when according to them Mr. Kimberley was responding to their
18
request to generally down-scale all of his marks.
Furthermore, since he worked in Toronto, Mr. Kimberley could
not have been too familiar with the candidates. One wonders
how he would have re-done the marks in any meaningful way
considering that he had no notes of the answers given by the
employees. We also note, that the score sheets.for the other
six candidates were not produced by the Employer, so that we
do not know what, if any, changes were made by Mr. Kimberley
on those sheets.
It was generally agreed at the hearing that job
competitions are vitally important to employees and that
therefore they must be run fairly and be seen to be run
fairly. The particular collective agreement in article 4.3
has given special recognition to employee seniority in the
process of a job competition. Seniority is one of the most
important rights negotiated in a collective agreement on
behalf of employees. An employee who competes for a job only
has her own perception of the qualifications and ability. If
she is not successful in the competition, she may therefore
feel aggrieved because she would not be aware of how the
employer came to its decision. Thus the avenue open to her
is to file a grievance, which is a right she has under the
collective agreement. When such a grievance comes before the
Board, the Employer has an obligation to be candid in setting
out for the Board the process which was followed. If there
I9
is a lack of candour, the inference is that the Employer is
attempting to hide or coveruP something from the Board.
Unfortunately, we are not able to say that some of the
Employer witnesses were candid. On the contrary, we are left
with serious questions about their credibility. For example,
Ms. Sandland and Ms. Kelly had no doubt that Mr..Kimberley had
nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting of the questions
or their weighting (except the one he added). They were
certain that there was no discussion with Mr. Kimberley about
those questions and that he was simply given a copies of the
sheets which already had the questions, suggested answers and
weight. In contrast, Mr. Kimberley testified that the three
panel members met and discussed the questions as well as the
weighting on the morning of the interviews. He insisted that
he had "real input" into the content of the questions and that
he made a number of suggestions. He also testified that the
weighting for the questions was decided and entered on the
score sheets during this meeting in "a kind of assembly line"
system.
The grievor testified that during her interview, Mr.
Kimberley did not make any notes. Ms. Williams testified that
she did not know if he took any notes and Ms. Sandland stated
that she could not recall. On the other hand, Ms. Kelly had
no difficulty agreeing that Mr. Kimberley took no notes during
the interviews. Indeed, she agreed that generally it is
2O
prudent for a member of a selection panel to make notes, but
explained that in this case she was not concerned about Mr.
Kimberley not making any notes because at the end his ranking
was the same as the others. When Mr. Kimberley took the
stand, he insisted that he made notes on a separate sheet of
paper. When asked if he can produce those notes, he stated
that he had discarded the same. We find Mr. Kimberley's
evidence in this regard to be not credible and have concluded
that he did not take any notes.
We have already noted the direct conflict between the
evidence of Ms. Sandland and Ms. Kelly on the one hand, and
Mr. Kimberley's on the other, relating to how he came to
adjust the marks of the grievor. That is another example of
someone being untruthful in giving testimony.
We are convinced that the conflict in the evidence is not
a result of fading of memories or an inability to recall.
Firstly, the grievance was filed soon after the competition
results were announced. Therefore, the competition was put
into contention and that has remained so until the matter came
before this Board. Moreover, the witnesses did not give any
~indication that they were having any difficulty recalling.
They were very definite about their testimony, and described
the events in detail. For instance the testimony about Mr.
21
Kimberley's marks being too high. The only conclusion we can
reach is that someone was being untruthful before the Board.
Ms. Quick for-the Employer submits that while there were
some flaws in the process, it met the threshold requirement.
We disagree. The procedural defects, combined with the other
factors we have reviewed lead us to the inescapable conclusion
that the selection process was fatally flawed and its results
cannot be allowed to stand.
The Employer presented statistical evidence in an attempt
to show that even if Msl Sandland's marks are ignored and even
if the marking was adjusted to remedy the defects alleged by
the Union, still Ms. Williams would have finished well ahead
of the grievor. We have considered that evidence but attach
no weight to it. The problem with the selection process here
is not simply one of wrong marks being allocated. The
inconsistent marking is part and parcel of- a larger problem
of bias. On the totality of evidence we have reason to
believe that Ms. Williams received preferential treatment from
Ms. Sandland and Ms. Kelly. Disregarding of Ms. Sandland's
marks achieves nothing because, we have no assurance that her
pr~'ference for Ms. Williams did not influence the other
members of the selection panel.
22
Now we turn to the issue of remedy. The grievor was the
only candidate who grieved the result of the'competition. At
the time of the competition she held the position of group
leader, which was identical in classification and remuneration
to the position held at the time by Ms. Williams. The Board
had the benefit of hearing both employees being examined and
cross-examined about their qualifications, abilities and
experience. We also heard about the answers provided by each
employee at the job interviews. We have access to all of the
relevant documentation with respect to the employees or at
least to their contents. On the basis of all of this we are
satisfied, and we find, that the grievor had qualifications
and ability relatively equal to those possessed by Ms.
Williams. Therefore, considering her greater seniority she
should have been awarded the job pursuant to article 4.3. On
the final day of hearing both counsel informed the Board that
the Supervisor, Revenue Control position was being declared
redundant effective January 1, 1990. Ms. Quick agreed that
in the circumstances it made no sense to direct that the
competition be re-run. Also we have found that there was an
element of bias on the part of the Employer. The lack of
candour on the part of employer witnesses, including some
senior management personnel, raise questions about their
ability to run a further competition involving the grievor in
good faith. Besides, we were informed on the final day of
hearing that Ms. Williams had vacated the position in question
and had left the government 'service. It is in these
circumstances that the Board feels that it is appropriate to
take the somewhat exceptional step of awarding the position
to the grievor.
Accordingly, the Employer is directed to award the
position' of Supervisor, Revenue Control forthwith to the
grievor, and to compensate the grievor for all losses resulting
from its failure to do so following the job competition. The
Board remains seized in the event the parties have any
disagreement in implementing the terms of this award.
Dated this 3rd day of January, 1990, at Hamilton, Ontario
Nimal V. Dissanayake
Vice-Chairperson
John McManus
Member
Michael O'Toole
Member