HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoss-Wright 92-03-16 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
FANSH~WE. COLLEGE
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
GRIEVANCE OF R. ROSS-WRIGHT
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
JANE H. DEVLIN CHAIRMAN
R. HUBERT COLLEGE NOMINEE
JANE GRIMWOOD UNION NOMINEE
Appearances ~or the College:
Stephen F. Gleave
Peter Myers
Appearances for the Union:
Allison Hudgins
Jean Crawford
Jim Phillips
Rita Ross-Wright
The Grievor, Rita Ross-Wright, claims that she was
improperly denied a vacancy in the position of Clerk - Pay Band 6
in the Co-operative Education and Community Relations ("CECR")
Division. This position was. posted in May of 1989 and the
posting was as follows:
4. Co-operative Education and Community Relations Division
CLERK - Pay Band 6
SALARY: $11.85 - $13.13 per hour
DUTIES: Under the general supervision of the CECR Clerical
Services Manager, provides support to training consultants,
including secretarial, clerical and. receptionist duties.
QUALIFICATIONS:
Essential - Secondary school graduate with significant
clerical/secretarial experience and some computer experience
using WordPerfect and DBase software programs,' or equivalent
combination of education and related work experience.
Excellent interpersonal, communication and organizational
skills along with professional receptionist skills.
Location: 171 Queens Avenue
.The successful applicant for the position was Kate
Graham who attended and participated in the hearing of the
grievance.
As indicated on the job posting, the position in
question involves providing support to training consultants and
the work is performed in the Ontario Skills Development office
("OSDO"). At the relevant time, Robert Miller was the Manager of
OSDO and Jeanette Morgan was the CECR Clerical Services Manager
2
and the immediate supervisor of the incumbent of the posted
position.
Prior to the establishment of OSDO, another government
program known as Training in Business and Industry ("TIBI") was
delivered in the CECR Division. This program provided financial
assistance to business and industry to undertake staff training.
TIBI was phased out in late 1986 at which time two new government
programs were introduced, namely OSDO and Ontario Skills ("OS").
Like TIBI, OS is a financial incentive program for staff training
whereas OSDO provides consulting services in relation to the.
training to be undertaken. These latter services generally
involve a training-needs analysis and the development of a
training plan.
The job description for the position of Clerk - Pay
Band 6 was introduced in evidence and the major'dUties and
responsibilities of the position are as follows:
Duties and Responsibilities Approx. %/yr
**************************************** ************
Approximate % of
Time Annually
Initiates and traces confidential course 30%
applications obtaining appropriate signatures ~.
and follow-up for monthly statistical reports'
from this information. Troubleshoot tracking
system of applications to ensure documentation
is received on time from consultants for
reporting and release of funds. Expected to
deal with clients in the absence of S.S.O.
Responsible for inputting pertinent date for 10%
for Ministry Management Information System.
Inputs pertinent data of clients/employers,
course; consultant hours and corrects and
revises as necessary; statistical data for
report generation (Ministry and College).
Collects statistical data from consultants 8%
re workloads, training plans, course
application loads and monitors position
during process. Screens employer enquiries
regarding basic eligibility criteria for
O.S.D.O. consultant services. Registers
employer via telephone contact. Takes
information and completes demographic
information. Assigns new clients to
consultants for employer workload.
Word processing for correspondence, training 30%
plans, reports, and proposals. Participate
in the design, revision and upgrading of
departmental forms.
Monitors course progress to ensure 5%
completion of outstanding monitors and
evaluations for MSD audit in order that
OS funds are released.
Schedules employer/consultant appointments. 6%
Organize confidential files for new employers,
sends out appropriate correspondence, creates
employer files, course files and monitor/
evaluation follow-up files.
Compiles statistics for weekly and monthly 3%
reports to Planning and Development on course,
employer and consultant activities.
Books facilities, orders lunches, refreshments" 3%
for on and off-site meetings. Assembles and
organizes information for meetings. Takes
minutes for various committee meetings and
formulates results.
Responds to telephone enquiries and walk-in ~ 5%
enquiries and disseminates information about
OSDO programs. Receives and distributes
OSDO/OS mail, organizes courier pick-up.
Orders supplies and maintains inventory.
4
The evidence indicates that the incumbent of the
position in issue is in regular contact with new and existing
clients of OSDO as well as with representatives of the College,
government agencies and organizations which provide training to
OSDO clients. In the course of her duties, the incumbent is
required to explain the essential features of the consulting
service and to interpret pertinent government and internal
guidelines. The incumbent must also answer questions with
respect to the service in the event that a consultant is not
available. In addition, the incumbent arranges interviews, sets
up files, collects statistical data and performs word processing
and other clerical duties. In this regard, it was the evidence
of Mr. Miller that the incumbent plays a supportive role in
project management. Mr. Miller also testified that good
communication skills are the most essential qualification for an
employee in this position. To use the words of Mr. Miller, the
incumbent is expected to "to sell the sizzle of the service".
Prior to commencing full-time employment with the
College on August 10, 1987, the Grievor worked for a number of
years for a local School Board where she performed general office
duties including reception. In early 1986, while employed by a
personnel agency, the Grievor was assigned' for a 2 to 3 month
period to work at the Futures Centre at the College where her
duties again involved reception and typing. In July of 1986, the
5
Grievor began to work for the College on a part-time basis and
was assigned to assist Lorraine Judd, the Secretary/Receptionist
for TIBI. During this period, the Grievor worked under the
supervision of Ms. Morgan. The Grievor's work primarily involved
typing although she did perform reception duties for a 3-week
period in October of 1986 and also provided relief in the event
of absence. At that time, however, the consultants, rather than
the clerical staff, explained the relevant guidelines to
prospective clients.
While assisting Ms. Judd, the Grievor came to know the
consultants who worked for TIBI, some of whom later worked for
OSDO. The Grievor also became familiar with certain forms and
formulas used by the TIBI, some of which were subsequently in use
at OSDO. In addition, the Grievor assisted Ms..Judd in
transferring material from TIBI files to OS and OSDO forms and in
setting up a new registry for OS and OSDO files. In the spring
of 1987, the OS office moved to a new location and became part of
the Financial Services Department. Thereafter, Ms. Judd and the
Grievor worked entirely for OS and reported to Dennis Appleton,
the Manager of OS.
Upon obtaining full-time employment with the College in
August of 1987, the Grievor began working as a Typist/Steno "B"
in the Language and Communications Division. In September of
1988, her position was upgraded to Typist/Steno "C". In this
position, the Grievor acted as a receptionist for students and
faculty within the Division; she also maintained course outlines,
verified course credits and performed bookkeeping and other
clerical duties.
The incumbent, Kate Graham, commenced her employment
with the College on September 8, 1987 and prior to the posting in
May of 1989, she worked in a number of Departments, including
Student Awards, Student Services, the Futures Centre and Health
Services. In these Departments, she performed a variety of
functions, including reception and clerical duties. Prior to her
employment with the College, Ms. Graham worked as an Assistant to
the Sales Co-ordinator for C.M. Peterson Ltd. and she testified
that in this position, approximately 75 to 80% of her time
involved answering general inquiries from the public. Ms. Graham
also worked for a cable company in Prince Edward Island where she
conducted on-air interviews and acted as a Playback Operator and
an Audio Visual Technician.
There were initially four candidates for the position
of Clerk - Pay Band 6 although one of the candidates subsequently
withdrew her application. The remaining candidates; namely, the
Grievor, Ms. Graham and Constance Rolfe were interviewed by a
panel comprised of Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller. Prior to the
interviews, the panel reviewed the applications'and resumes of
each of the candidates. The Grievor's application was
7
accompanied by a letter of reference from her immediate
Supervisor, Len Monteyne.
During the interviews, the candidates were each asked a
series of questions which were as follows:
OSDO Full Time Clerk London
a) What did you do to prepare for this interview?
1. What can you tell us about OSDO?
2. What was it about the ad that prompted you to apply?
3. What suggestions did you make in your last job to improve
operations or morale?
4. What is the most difficult thing you've had to tackle? (can
be personal or business related)
5. Were you successful?
6. How much time have you spent on the Word Perfect Program?
7. What type of office environment do you work best? (looking
for coping with inturruptions [sic], variety of duties,
busy, busy)
8. What did you enjoy in your last job?
9. What didn't you enjoy in your last job?
10. Tell us what your last boss would tell us about you.
11. What in your background best qualifies you for this
position?
12. Do you think you will like this job? Why?
13. What do you have to offer us?
14. Do you wish to be a leader? How and why?
15. What does you work area look like?
16. Do you have a "happy-smiling" voice at ALL times?
8
17. If you were alone at the reception desk over lunch hour when
all other staff were out, what would you do if a reporter
from the FreePress called to ask for statistics on training?
She wants to publish a story for the next edition and her
deadline is 2:00 p.m. You have the information that the
reported needs. Would you provide the information? If not
what would you do?
18. In this position you will provide a clerical support for two
consultants and provide receptionist duties for the office.
It will be very busy. What would you do if your work load
increases to the point where you cannot possibly finish all
the assignments that you have agreed to complete by a
particular date?
19. Do you prefer to work on one assignment at a time until it
is finished, or to have several projects on the go at one
time.
If you work gets interrupted by another assignment, how do
you decide whether to finish what you are working on, or to
start the new assignment.
The evidence indicates that Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller
independently recorded the answers given by the candidates and
although Mr. Miller initially recalled that each candidate was
asked all of the questions, neither Ms. Morgan nor Mr. Miller
recorded an answer to question #3 for Constance Rolfe.~ Although
Ms. Morgan's notes also indicate that Ms. Graham was not asked
question #13, Mr. Miller testified that other questions were
designed to elicit similar information and that Ms. Graham was
not asked question #13 as the panel was satisfied that it had
previously been provided with the information in answer to that
question.
At the conclusion of the interviews, Ms. Morgan and Mr.
Miller prepared a rating sheet on which they rated candidates
9
according to the following criteria which were drawn from the jo~
posting: Secondary School Graduate; Secretarial/Clerical
Experience; Computer Experience; Excellent Interpersonal Skills;
Professional Communication Skills; Organizational Skills and
Professional Receptionist Skills. Five points were assigned to
each category and Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller discussed and agreed
upon the score to be given to each candidate. Out of a possible
total of 35 points, the Grievor received a score of 30 points
while Ms. Rolfe and Ms. Graham received 33 and 34 points,
respectively.
On the rating sheet for the Grievor, the panel noted
under the heading "Excellent Interpersonal Skills" that the
Grievor seemed more interested in staff friendships than in
providing service to the clients. Under the heading
"Professional Communication Skills", the panel noted that the
Grievor exhibited limited vocabulary, structure and syntax.
Finally, under the heading "Professional Reception Skills", the
panel noted that the Grievor had a harsh voice and an unpolished
demeanour. Under the same headings for Ms. Graham, the panel
noted that Ms. Graham appeared to be oriented toward client
service, that in the area of communication skills, she had
received professional training and experience and that she had a
pleasant voice and a professional demeanour, under the heading
"Organizational Skills", which was the only category in which Ms.
Graham lost a mark, the panel noted that her desk-was Untidy.
10
In respect of the Grievor's performance at the
interview, both Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller testified that the
Grievor did not appear to know the difference between OS and
OSDO; she referred only to the funding aspect of OS and was
unable to explain what she knew of OSDO. The Grievor was also
unable to communicate what skills and knowledge she could bring
to the job and when asked about her qualifications, she
repeatedly said that she had worked in the office and was
familiar with the staff. This response prompted the panel to
note on the rating sheet that the Grievor appeared to be more·
interested in staff friendships than in providing service to
clients.
According to Ms. Morgan, the Grievor was also emotional
during the interview and, at times, exhibited anger which caused
Ms. Morgan to believe that she would have difficulty dealing with
an irate client. According to Mr. Miller, the Grievor's
responses were often perfunctory and abrupt and, at times, she
appeared to be impatient and frustrated with the questions being
put to her. Mr. Miller described the Grievor's manner during the
interview as generally flat and lethargic. Although Mr. Miller
and Ms. Morgan also expressed some concern with regard to the
Grievor's failure to demonstrate strategies' for problem-solving
or priorizing work assignments, it does not appear that the
Grievor lost any marks as a result of these concerns. In fact,
11
the Grievor received full marks in the categories of
Secretarial/Clerical Experience and Organizational Skills. The
Grievor lost marks only in the categories of Interpersonal,
Communication and Professional Reception Skills.
With respect to Ms. Graham's performance at the
interview, both Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller testified that Ms.
Graham was articulate with respect to her skills and
qualifications and appeared to be genuinely interested in
providing a service to the client. She demonstrated good
technical and organizational ability and was composed and
confident during the interview.
After scoring the individual candidates on their
performance at the interview, the panel conducted reference
checks for both the Grievor and Ms. Graham. (Ms. Morgan
testified that because Ms. Rolfe had less seniority than either
the Grievor or Ms. Graham, the panel decided not to give any
further consideration to her application.) In conducting the
reference check for the Grievor, Ms. Morgan spoke briefly with·
the Grievor's current Supervisor, Len Monteyne. According to Ms.
Morgan, she did not have a lengthy conversation with Mr. Monteyne
as she had spoken to him some time previously concerning the
Grievor's application for a receptionist position in the Futures
Centre. In any event, Ms. Morgan testified that the reference
she obtained from Mr. Monteyne was favorable as was his letter,
12
which was appended to the Grievor's application for the posted
position. Ms. Morgan then discussed with Mr. Miller the
reference from Mr. Monteyne as well as her own assessment of the
Grievor's performance during the period from August of 1986 to
the spring of 1987 when she acted as the Grievor's Supervisor.
In respect of Ms. Graham, Ms. Morgan spoke with Ms.
Graham's former employer in Prince Edward Island as well as with
her immediate Supervisor and the Director of the Student Services
Department at the College. In each instance, the reference was
favorable.
The panel did not, however, review the personnel files
of either Ms. Graham or the Grievor. As a result, the panel did
not consider three letters of reference which were contained in
the Grievor's personnel file and which had been submitted in
respect of applications for other positions within the College.
Each of the letters was written in the spring of 1987 and the
first letter was from Tom Pickard, who was then the Manager of
OSDO; the second letter was written by Ms. Morgan and the third,
by Colleen Moore, then the Director of Youth Programs. All of
the letters concerned the Grievor's performance in the latter
part of 1986 and early 1987 and the letters were positive in all
respects.
13
Apart from the personnel files, the panel also did not
consider two performance appraisals which were completed by Mr.
Monteyne during the Grievor's probationary period which were also
favorable. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller testified, however,
that the personnel files and performance appraisals did not
contain information of which they were not aware and that the
information would not have affected the result as, in their view,
Ms. Graham was the superior candidate.
Apart from the interviews and reference checks, Ms.
Morgan and Mr. Miller testified that they considered the
seniority of both the Grievor and Ms. Graham although as they
pointed out, the difference in seniority is only three weeks.
Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller testified that they also considered the
Grievor's part-time experience at TIBI although in Mr. Miller's
view, this experience was no more valuable than experience
obtained in any other department of the College. In this regard,
both Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller testified that there have been a
number of changes to the OSDO program since the GrieVor worked in
that area. Ms. Morgan also testified that the Grievor's work
primarily involved typing rather than reception duties and Mr.
Miller expressed reservations about the value of the Grievor's
experience, given that she was unable to articulate what she knew
of OSDO at the interview. In the result, it was the decision of
the panel to award the position of Clerk - Pay Band 6 to Ms.
Graham.
The relevant provision of the Collective Agreement is
Article 17.1.1 which is as follows:
17.1.1 Consideration - Bargaining Unit Employees
When a vacancy in the bargaining unit occurs and employees
in the bargaining unit make application for the position,
the College will give proper consideration to the
qualifications, experience, and seniority of all applicants
in relation to the requirements of the posted position·
It was the submission of Ms. Hudgins, on behalf of the
Union, that the College breached Article 17.1.1 of the Collective
Agreement in that the interview panel and, Mr. Miller, in
particular, considered sales or marketing skills when, in fact,
there is no requirement for such skills either on the job posting
or on the job description. Ms. Hudgins further contended that
the panel based its decision on the performance of the candidates
during the interviews and failed to review personnel files or
performance appraisals which contained information relevant to
requirements of the posted position. It was also contended that
the panel placed undue emphasis on communication skills and
failed to properly consider the clerical and administrative
qualifications of the respective candidates. Moreover, the panel
confused experience and seniority and did not give appropriate
weight to the Grievor's prior experience at TIBI, OS and'OSDO.
In fact, Ms. Hudgins submitted that the evidence indicates that
Ms. Morgan had decided in advance not to award the position to
15
the Grievor and accordingly, the College did not give proper
consideration to the factors set out in Article 17.1.1 of the
Collective Agreement. In the result, given the College's breach
of the Agreement and the'qualifications, experience and seniority
of the Grievor, Ms. Hudgins requested that the Grievor be
appointed to the position in issue. In the alternative, Ms.
Hudgins asked that the Board direct that the competition be rerun
before a new selection panel.
It was the submission of Mr. Gleave, on behalf of the
College, that the College fulfilled the obligation set out in
Article 17.1.1 and did, in fact, give proper consideration to the
qualifications, experience and seniority of the respective
applicants. In this regard, it was contended that the panel
considered only those qualifications set out on the job posting
and did not take into account any extraneous factors. It was
further submitted that the panel did not rely solely on'the
performance of the candidates at the interview but also took into
account information obtained from reference checks. Although the
panel did not review the personnel files or performance
appraisals of the candidates, Mr. Gleave contended that in the
Grievor's case, this documentation did not contain information of
which the panel was not aware and, accordingly, would not have
affected the College's decision in this case. Finally, Mr.
Gleave submitted that the panel considered the Grievor's prior
experience at TIBI but that this was not a deciding factor, giver
16
the nature of the experience and the changes to the program since
the Grievor worked in that area. In the result, Mr. Gleave
contended that the panel properly concluded that the Grievor
lacked the communication and reception skills required for the
position and that, as a result, there was no basis upon which to
impugn the College's decision. Mr. Gleave requested, therefore,
that the grievance be dismissed.
Article 17.1.1 of the Collective Agreement provides
that when a vacancy occurs, the College will give proper
consideration to the qualifications, experience and seniority of
the bargaining unit applicants in relation to the requirements of
the vacant position.
In considering Article 17.1.1, the Board in Durha~
College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union March 25, 1988
(McLaren (unreported)) had this to say:
This type of provision is known as a "hybrid clause".
does Dot say that the senior employee will get the position
if the employee can do the job. It does not say that
seniority will govern if qualifications and experience are
relatively equal. It simply says that "proper
consideration" must be given to three factors---
qualifications, experience, and seniority---in relation to
the requirements of the vacant position. Thus there is a
great deal of flexibility permitted in the decision-making
process. However, seniority must be considered (see, for
example, Cambrian C~llege and Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (grievance of M. Ransom, unreported decision
of Swan, dated January 29, 1987), at pages 5-6). And
"proper consideration" involves two elements---firstly, the
employer must gather sufficient information on which to make
a valid judgement of the merits of the candidates; and
secondly, the employer must give appropriate weight to the
17
various factors in light of the requirements of the posted
position.
As noted by the Board in Durham College, Article
17.1.1 does not provide that the senior applicant with the
requisite ability is entitled to the posted position, nor does it
provide that seniority will govern where qualifications and
experience are relatively equal. Instead, Article 17.1.1 is a
hybrid clause which requires that the College give proper
consideration to the factors set out in relation to the
requirements of the vacant position.
In this context, then, it is necessary to consider the
initial submission of the Union that, in awarding the position of
Clerk - Pay Band 6 to Ms. Graham, the College took into account
qualifications which were not set out on the job posting. In
this regard, the Union pointed to the evidence of Mr. Miller that
the incumbent is expected "to sell the sizzle of the service".
Based upon this evidence, the Union contended that sales or
marketing ability was relevant to the posted position but was not
referred to on the job posting, nor made.the subject of specific
questions during the interview process. The Union further
submitted that the College failed to consider a business
marketing course taken by the Grievor in assessing her
qualifications for the posted position.
18
It was the submission of the College that Mr. Miller's
evidence could not be construed as a requirement for marketing
skills but that instead, Mr. Miller was referring to the use of
communication and interpersonal skills to interest prospective
clients in the consulting service provided by OSDO.
The Board has reviewed the evidence of Mr. Miller with
care. Although Mr. Miller referred to the requirement "to sell
the sizzle of the service", he subsequently explained that he was
speaking of the ability to effectively communicate the features
and advantages of the OSDO program. Based upon this evidence, we
are not persuaded that Mr. Miller was referring to anything other
than the use of "excellent interpersonal [and] communication
skills" which are referred to on the job posting. At the same
time, Mr. Miller testified that the College was looking for an
individual who could be trained in marketing skills and to the
eXtent that this was a requirement for the posted position, we
find that it ought to have been brought to the attention of
prospective applicants: see Canadore College and Ontario Public
Service Rmployees Un, on November 28, 1989 (Samuels (unreported)).
The College was also bound to consider the qualifications and
experience of the candidates relative to this requirement..
The next issue concerns the submission of the Union
that the College improperly failed to consider two 'performance
appraisals as well as three letters of reference contained in the
19
Grievor's personnel file. In this regard, as noted by the Board
in Centennial College and Ontario Public Service Employees UDion
April 3, 1990 (Brent (unreported)) in considering the factors set
out in Article 17.1.1, the College must gather sufficient
relevant information in order to make a valid assessment. While /
this does not necessarily mean that performance appraisals and
personnel files must be reviewed in every case, where such
documentation is not considered, the College runs the risk of
overlooking information which may be pertinent to an candidate's
qualifications for the posted position.
In this case, we find that the two performance
appraisals in question did not contain information with respect
to the Grievor's qualifications which was not otherwise
considered by the selection panel. In this regard, it is to be
noted that the appraisals were completed by Mr. Monteyne from
whom both an oral and a written reference were obtained. The
appraisals also concerned the Grievor's performance during the
probationary period which is dealt with in Mr. Monteyne's written
reference which covers the entire period of the Grievor's
employment in the Language and Communication Division prior to
the job posting. In the result, in this case, we do not find
that the College's failure to consider the Grievor's performance
appraisals affected its ability to make a valid assessment in
accordance with the requirements of Article 17.1.1 of the
Collective Agreement.
20
The College, however, also failed to consider three
letters of reference contained in the Grievor's personnel file.
As noted previously, one of the letters was written by Ms. Morgan
and pertained to the period when the Grievor assisted Lorraine
Judd, the Secretary/Receptionist for TIBI. Although Ms. Morgan
evidently discussed her assessment of the Grievor's performance
with Mr. Miller, in our view, had the three letters of reference
been considered in conjunction with the reference from Mr.
Monteyne, the letters would have caused the panel to question its
concern with respect to the Grievor's commitment to provide
service to clients. While the letters would also have alleviated
the panel's concern about the Grievor's ability to engage in
problem-solving or her ability to adapt to changing priorities,
as noted previously, the Grievor did not lose any marks in the
categories of Organizational Skills or Secretarial/~lerical
Experience. In this latter respect, therefore, it does not
appear that the letters would have had any practical effect on
the outcome of the selection Process.
Although the Union also submitted that Ms. MOrgan had
determined in advance not to award the position of Clerk - Pay
Band 6 to the Grievor, in.our view, the evidence is not
sufficient to support this conclusion. While Ms. Morgan had only
a brief conversation with Mr. Monteyne in conducting a reference
check for the Grievor, she explained that she had spoken to him
21
previously concerning the Grievor's performance as a result of al
earlier application for a receptionist position in the Futures
Centre. Ms. Morgan had also been provided with a written
reference from Mr. Monteyne which was appended to the Grievor's
application for the posted position. As well, Ms. Morgan
discussed her assessment of the Grievor with Mr. Miller and, on
the evidence, we are not persuaded that the panel conducted a
cursory reference check or otherwise limited its consideration of
the Grievor's application because a decision had been made in
advance not to award her the position in question.
The final issue, then, concerns the consideration given
to the Grievor's prior experience at TIBI, OS and OSDO. While
the Union submitted that the panel confused seniority and
experience and, therefore, did not consider experience which
predated the Grievor's full-time employment with the College,
both Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller testified that they did, in fact,
consider the Grievor's experience at TIBI. While the Board might
have given more credit to the Grievor for the experience than did
the interview panel, we accept the evidence of Ms. Morgan and Mr.
Miller that there have been changes to the OSDO program'since the
Grievor worked in that area. It is also apparent that when
assisting Ms. Judd, the Grievor was primarily involved in typing
rather than in reception duties and that even when performing
reception work, there was no requirement to explain guidelines to
prospective clients as is presently the case at OSDO. To some
extent, we also share Mr. Miller's concern about the value of the
Grievor's experience given that she did not appear to know the
difference between OS and OSDO at the interview and referred only
to the funding aspect of OS.
In the result, the Board finds that there were some
deficiencies in the selection process. This, however, does not
lead us to conclude that the Grievor is entitled to the position
of Clerk - Pay Band 6 as it has not been demonstrated that,
absent these deficiencies, the Grievor would have been awarded
the position in question. Having considered the matter with
care, we are also of the view that this is not an appropriate
case to direct that the competition be rerun.
As indicated previously, the difference in seniority
between the Grievor and Ms. Graham is approximately three weeks.
Both candidates had excellent references and the Grievor had
previous experience at TIBI and had also taken a business
marketing course. Nevertheless, we accept the evidence of both
Ms. Morgan and Mr. Miller that at the interview., Ms. Graham
demonstrated superior communication skills which the Grievor did
not. Although there was some suggestion that communication
skills do not account for a substantial portion of the
incumbent's time, the amount of time spent on a particular job
duty is not necessarily determinative of the significance of the
skill involved. In'this case, we accept the evidence of Mr.
23
Miller with regard to the importance of communication skills to
the effective performance of the position in question.
Moreover, although it has been held that a selection
panel should not base its decision entirely on performance during
an oral interview, we know of no authority to suggest that
performance during the interview must be disregarded,
particularly when it relates to a qualification such as
communication skills which can be demonstrated during the
interview process. In this case, the panel also found Ms. Graham
to be superior in respect of interpersonal and professional
reception skills based upon her performance at the.interview. In
the Board's view, performance at the interview was properly taken
into account and we find that had the College complied with the
requirements of Article 17.1.1, it could reasonably have
concluded that Ms. Graham was the preferable candidate.
Accordingly, the grievance of Ms. Ross-Wright is hereby
dismissed. '
DATED AT TORONTO, this 16th day of March, 1992,..
Chairman
"R. Hubert"
College Nominee
See Dissent Attached
Union Nominee
Fanshawe College and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance of R. Ross-Wright
0PSEU 89D270
Dissent from the Award of the Majority
The selection process required in this case was not a complicated one.
One would normally expect an educational institution to have the
capacity to respect the minimal requirements imposed under this
Collective Agreement without deficiencies.
That expectation is not an unreasonable one. In fact, it is the quid
pro quo for having a hybrid selection'clause, rather than a strict
seniority clause.
I agree that there were deficiencies in the process. Some were more
glaring than others. But it is speculative to suggest that the Grievor
would not have been awarded the position anyway.
In fact, in my view, the Majority has erred in the application of the onus.
Once the Grievor has established deficiencies in this process, it is the
College who must demonstrate that the Grievor would still have been
unsuccessful; but the majority award states:
"...as it has not been de0monstrated that, absent
these deficiences, the Grievor would have been
awarded the position in question." (at Page 22)
I would have directed a rerun of the competition with a different
selection panel.
J Grlmwood, Union Nominee