Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNickle 90-05-25 88B476 Local 557 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ~) GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (The Employer) ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (The Union) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF NANCY NICKLE, OPSEU NO. 88B476 BOARD OF ARBITRATION: HOWARD D. BROWN, CHAIRMAN R. HI/BERT, EMPLOYER NOMINEE J. HERBERT, UNION NOMINEE APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE: F.G. HAMILTON, Q.C., COUNSEL SALLY LAYTON, DIRECTOR - HI/MAN RESOURCES APPEARANCES FOR THE I/NION: MARY ANN KI3NTZ, GRIEVANCE OFFICER S. READ, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 557 NANCY NICKLE, GRIEVOR HEARINGS IN THIS MATTER WERE HELD AT TORONTO ON DECEMBER 12TH, 1988, MAY 18TH, MAY 25TH AND DECEMBER 5TH, 1989. AWARD - 1 - The grievance dated June 17th, 1988 contained the following claims: "I was not given full and fair consideration and also discriminated against for the position of Secretary B as outlined in job competion #88-102 dated 88 May 27." As a settlement desired the grievance form indicates as follows: "That Management cease and desist this discrimination because of a previous grievance and that I be given the position of Secretary B as outlined in competion 88-102." By letter, dated June 22nd, 1988, Pat Smith, Assistant to the President of the College, replied to the grievance in part as follows: "The Committee is of the opinion that you were given fair consideration for competion 88-102 and I would reassure you that there was no discrimination involved with the decision. Your grievance is therefore denied." The matter in dispute not being resolved by the parties was referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Collective Agreement in effect at all material times and came on for hearing on the dates as above noted when the Board received the evidence and submissions of the parties. There is no dispute between the parties as to the Board's jurisdiction in this matter. The job posting for competion 88-102 is as follows: - 2 - C'_ASSIF]C.-~TiO,"I: Secretary B INCUMBEi'.IT: L. Rlc~cce SALARY: $:Z0,5.;7.,80 - $22,~77.~0 ($11.27 - $17.571hr.) PAY BAND: IDIVISION: President's Office CAMPUS: 500 M¢cPherscn COMP~_T1TiCN/~: 83 - I (~2 ALLOWANCe: N/A ~-FECTiVE [DATE: Immediately STATUS: ProhatJon~r~ AFFiLiATION: OPS~.U--Su~p c:' QUALZF~CATION~: - Secondary School Graduate or ec~uivalent - U~3 to five years experience including one year extensive usage of ',vcrz proce~ing equipment (Xerox 8~0 p_referred) '7'' Demonstrated in~e~ersonat s~ills - Knowledge of dictating · '- Minute taking ~iils ~ ~ - Ability to work independently and under pre.ute - Sound knowledge of the College e~entiai - Ability to deal with staff/studentS~ Board of ~ovemors and ail '~ ' government DUTIF~: -Provides searet~io! (md su13port ser~ic~ to the President a~d ';i A~ist~t by= - lnguts~ formats ~d I~ts ~espondence~ r~orts~ minutes~ etc. - Mainteins ~d org~izes fili~ ~st~ - Photocogi~ - Opens end distributes mail - Answers telephone in~iri~ ~d ~r~ges ~pointments ~d meetings - Performs other relrt~ ~ti~ ~ ~sign~ 'tO APPLY: f'-.-ese se~d o covering letter (c;~oting competition number) and a res me (cetoillng educotion (:r,J experience) to: The Di,-.~:tor, Humon Resources 500 MocPherson Avenue · -- 3 -- The grievor was one of two applicants for this position, neither of whom were successful in obtaining the advertised position which was subsequently filled by hiring Ms. Giffney after the consideration and rejection of the internal candidates. Ms. Giffney was given notice of the proceedings and attended on her own behalf. The grievor received the following letter, dated June 20th, 1988, by which she was notified that she was not successful in her application for this position. Mrs. Nancy N'~lcl- Allied I"laai fh 175 K~x~ Avanue O~ MrL lq're:klm ~r~tinf~i~ f~ ~ifim of Snf~ Wirer to~ym t~l~r ~e ~ R~rc~ Off]~ ~id ~ f~ ~i~ to m~f ~ y~ to ~ int~i~ ~ y~ =m ~J~ Pt~ f~i f~ to mil m if ~ ~ ~ ai ~ist~ca ~ yw ~ ;~ f~ ywr intuit in ~ y~ ~ ~ffi ~rge ~rown Years Ann Lilleooid Hum~-. Reseurces Offlcer-~upport 2(7 Anniversa5 · ' G~.-~.~Srown Ccr'-.': · ~ .~.; ',,.." ~s -'q,: r~ ....... ;, , ~1'I': Stal~np,..Tczoi.ao. Orl.~.3MST2rg,d16)r~7.1?~2 The posted position is the only support staff position in the President's office. It is the Union's position that the College overlooked the grievor for the position for which she is highly qualified and did not give her full consideration as to her experience and qualificiations for the job and discriminated against her in relation to the competion which in its submission, was flawed. The Union seeks as a remedy, placement of the grievor in the position which is a lateral move from her present position as secretary to the Chairman in the Health Sciences Division. It was agreed that the grievor had greater seniority than the other internal applicant for the position. Mr. Reid said that in 1988 and prior to the present grievance he had represented the grievor on a grievance concerning a verbal reprimand which had taken place in front of other employees by Dr. Atkins, a Department Head. He attended with the grievor with the President of the College to attempt to intervene and to obtain assurance that such an outburst by a Department Head would not re-occur. The President could not give a guarantee which the grievor demanded, that the incident would not happen again. Dr. Atkins had explained that his remarks were not intended for the grievor, but to the Chairman and wrote a letter which the grievor refused to accept but had pursued the matter through the grievance procedure. Mr. Reid said, however, that Dr. Atkins did apologize in writing for what he had said. There was a settlement prior to arbitration through mediation when the apology was confirmed that the grievance was withdrawn. The President did not give any assurance that Dr. Atkins would refrain from outbursts against the support staff in the office as that was up to Dr. Atkins. The evidence of the grievor that while she presently holds the classification of Secretary B and is the secretary for Dr. Hori, Chairman in the Allied Health Department, she applied for this job because it is the only support staff position in the President's Office and was intrigued in the overall view of working in that office. She had some past experience in that area when she was involved with the Hay Audit of the Administrative Staff who were rated in accordance with the Hay system. She was involved in the presentation to the Provincial Committee because of her attention to detail and knowledge of the Macintosh Computer and overall broad knowledge of the College. She holds a B.A. from the University of Toronto in 1965 with a philosophy major and was first employed by the College as a temporary member of the personnel pool and obtained a full-time status in February 1983. Since then she has held positions in the College of Secretary 1 in Math and Science Department, Support Services Officer 1 - Job Start Project; Secretary 3 for the Dean in Continuing Education; Word Processing Operator 2 in Research and Planning; Typist-Steno 3 to the Chairperson, Continuing Education; Secretary B - Director, Computer Services, Clerk - Personnel Department; Secretary B - Chairperson Allied Health. The grievor reviewed her job moves within the College and said that she had done so to enhance her experience - 6 - and to learn as much about the College as quickly as she could. She had some computer experience prior to returning to work at the College and took jobs to learn the equipment and software in use. She enjoyed contact with students and Faculty and dealt with both in these positions and used her special knowledge of the College to an advantage in dealing with the Faculty and reports for Faculty which she prepared for the computer and circulated to them. Ms. Layton asked her to take on the work for the Hay Committee and took Minutes for the local Committee in the Fall of 1986 which involved reading-rating sheets for members of the Administration with regard to the accuracy of job descriptions and would input the information on the word processor. She was complimented for that work and thanked by the Vice-President, Administration. She considered the potential in these jobs for its use in the next job in which she might be interested at the College and said she had the personal financial freedom to apply to whatever position which interested her. She said she wanted to be part of the President's Office because there would soon be a change of administration and said she would like to be at the ground floor where the decisions are made. The grievor holds a B.A. degree and has six years experience including the use of word processing equipment. She said that she has met the qualification of demonstrated interpersonal skills in her jobs at the College. She told the Selection Committee that she did not have knowledge of dictating equipment but that is easy to pick up. She has taken Minutes of - 7 - meetings since her employment with the College. She is able to work independently as she did on the Hay project. She has some knowledge of the College through the various positions she has held and has regularly been involved in assistance to students and staff. Therefore it is her evidence that she met all of the qualifications as set out in the job posting. That posting refers to the following duties of' the job: Provide secretarial and support services to the President and his Assistant by: - inputs, formats and lay-outs, correspondence, Minutes, etc. - maintains and organizes filing system - photocopies - opens and distributes mail - answers telephones inquiries and arranges appointments and meetings - performs other related duties as assigned The grievor said that she was interviewed for this position by a Committee of three and was asked several questions concerning her background and her interest in the job. It seemed to her that full attention was not given to her by the Committee and she had to re-phrase and repeat some of her answers. She said Ms. Lillepold, Manager of ~mployment, asked her how she handles stress and said she found that difficult to answer and was not sure that she understood her global answer to that question which arose twice in different forms during the meeting. She said Pat Smith, who was - 8 - the Assistant to the President, described the position as being attractive to more junior employees who may use the job as a step for better positions and that it involved a great amount of filing as well as dealing with irate phone calls to the office along with overflow work from two Vice-Presidents and their Assistants or anyone who might be assigned in the office for a special project. She said there were concerns expressed at the meeting of her varied experience at the College which she felt was an advantage as she had contacts throughout the College. The interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. The grievor related an incident which occurred about the time of her job interview involving Dr. Atkins, the Dean of Health Sciences. She started to work in the Allied Health Department in January 1988 working for Dr. Hori. This area is shared with Dr. Atkins and she is located outside their offices. She was directed to obtain a computer table which she felt would be suitable for the Department and it was subsequently ordered and received on February 10th. Dr. Atkins was upset at the installation and called a meeting with Dr. Hori which she attended. She said that Dr. Atkins yelled at her about the purchase of the table and made other comments directed at her and said he should have been consulted. She said she was extremely distraught and the issue was taken by Dr. Hori to the President. She said later that morning, Dr. Atkins attempted to discuss the incident with her but she told him she would feel more comfortable with all conversation channelled through Dr. Hori and told him that she wanted to have as little as - 9 - possible to do with him as he frightened her. Ms. Lillepold met with Dr. Atkins and then with her and she was asked to accept a verbal apology from Dr. Atkins which he would not do. The grievor told her that she would be satisfied if there was a written statement showing that there would not be another outburst of temper by Dr. Atkins as he had been known to do. 'The next day she received a written memo from Dr. Atkins, but she said it was not clear to whom it was addressed and was not signed by him nor was it accurate and did not give her the future assurances she required. In cross examination the grievor admitted that she would not talk to Dr. Atkins about the issue without a Union representative present although it was possible he wanted to explain the incident to her. She wanted future assurances that the incident would not recur and would not be held against her and therefore rejected the memo from Dr. Atkins. The following week the grievor met with the President of the College to discuss the incident at which she told him of her displeasure with the memo and that for the future she wanted something in writing to guarantee a good relationship between Dr. Atkins and herself. She also wanted clarification of Ms. Lillepold's role as she had intervened in the situation after the President became involved. She said the President gave her an assurance that he would discuss the entire incident with Dr. Atkins and would attempt to get something to her. Following that she received a second memo from Dr. Atkins indicating that "all advice to you from me will be channelled through your immediate - 10 - Supervisor, Dr. T. Hori." She was not satisfied with that response and used the grievance procedure as she had exhausted all the other avenues open to her and had not received the assurance she required. She said that after the resolution of the grievance in October, their relationship changed perceptably for the better. She did not consider the incident to be trivial ~nd was concerned with her personal well being. The grievor said this incident had an effect in her job interview which she felt did not go well for her as she had experienced in other job application interviews. She felt that she was turned down because of the attitude of the Selection Committee who had in her view, made up their minds against her application before the interview. She felt that her grievance against Dr. Atkins had a negative influence on the Committee and particularly with Ms. Smith who she claimed had a personal relationship with Dr. Atkins. A few days later, Ms. Lillepold asked her for references which was the first time that request had ever been made to her. She said she furnished eight names by telephone and as she had been caught unaware she had spoken to three or four of those people she had named as references. The grievor was subsequently told by Ms. Lillepold that she lacked communication and interpersonal skills to function well with others in the College. The grievor referred and filed with the Board a number of thank you and appreciation cards from students and staff in the College in support of her interpersonal skills with her contacts at the College. - 11 - The grievance concerning the Atkins' incident was settled by the parties as indicated in the Memorandum of Settlement, dated October 19th, 1988 which the grievor signed indicating that the incident "will not be used against her in the future nor will a disciplinary note relative to that incident be included in her record. The College regrets the incident." The grievor said that she does set reasonably high standards for her work performance but does not get upset if others do not meet her standards and has good relationships with other employees. It was her opinion however, that Ms. Lillepold was in a controversial position having been involved in the situation of her first grievance and being a member of the Selection Committee for this position and felt that she had a negative influence on the Committee because of her prior involvement. Those concerns led to her claim of discrimination in this grievance. The grievor agreed that Ms. Lillepold was a member of the Selection Committee who interviewed her for her present job application in which she was successful but she said she applied for the posted position and wanted to further her interest in the overall knowledge of the operations of the College and in the Office of the President she felt she would get an understanding of how the College was operated as this was the seat of power where the processes originated and where she would obtain a broader scope of experience. She felt that she would be in on the ground floor when a change of administration may occur and could use her expertise which could lead to a more responsible position. - 12 - MS. Lillepold was hired by the College as Human Relations Officer in November 1987 and is presently the Manager of Employment with specific responsibility for the recruitment of support staff and the administration of the Labour Relations Board of support staff. A major part of her work has involved individual interviews both at the College and in her previous positions. She referred to the College policy in employment which is: "to select the most appropriate candidate and maintain equity in the selection procedure when full-time positions occur, internal and external applicants will be screened and evaluated by a formal Selection Committee ,, Ail internal applicants are interviewed after the paper qualifications are screened. For support staff the Selection Committee is to consist of the immediate supervisor, an Administrator or academic employee and a Personnel Officer. When the Committee is formed, it discusses the selection criteria for the job posting before the interviews and she prepares a rating sheet in order to rate each candidate. After the interview, the Committee reviews the results with the qualifications and the rating sheets prepared by the Committee. She checks with the applicant's current supervisor and does other reference checks as required. She makes any offer of employment to the candidate and all are advised of the results. She provides a job description for this position presently held by the incumbent, Ms. Giffney. The summary of the responsibility for that job is as follows: Provides .e~::re'~e~ial. and supp'or~ servic~.s ~o '~e Pre~iden~ &nd his Assistant. In:~-~:~p~ mail ~nd ~e2ephone encluiries ior t~he Presiden~ and Assis~an~ t~ The Pr~_~cien:, r~spondin§ on Weir beh:.l'F where possible~ pr~vidin§ iniorma~ion or re~r~ To ~he appropriate Division/Department. Arran~e.s a~dlor scheclu~e appoh~rne.n~s t~or ~he Pre~iden~ and Ass~s~ ~o Pr~idan~. Maintains general ~tlin§ sys~m ~d some ~td~ ~ for ~e Prudent. ~ ~e ~s~ of ~h~ Admi~a~ve As~~ ~ ~ Vi~*P~iden~, the ~ben~ ~so provide s~~i~ ~d ~p~ ~s~ m ~e Vic~-Pr~siden~. ~e ~mb~ provid~ s~ari~ ~m~ m ~e ~fl oi Governors, Y~ CI~ Commie,s, Bo~d Alumni~ ~ o~h6rs ~ ~si~n~ by ~h~ Assis~ ~o ~he Pr~iden~. ~e. in~mben~ ~ r~ired ~o work indep~den~y~ r~pond ~ickly ~d e~icien~ly r~e~ ~or ~yping, ~d rese~in~ iniorma~ion for Presid~ Assis~ to President, ~ sometimes ~he V[ce-Pr~iden~. ~,c [ncumben~ works within a flexible framework m~ing dcclsion~ and prc~tcms ota routine nature in - 14 - The interviews were conducted on June 9th for the two internal applicants for one-half hour each. The Committee was comprised of herself, Ms. Smith, the supervisor and Dean Kermin. Prior to the interview, the Committee developed a series of questions to ask the candidates and each member was provided with a rating sheet for four headings of: Relevant Education Relevant Experience Interpersonal Skills Communication Skills Marks were assigned to each of those headings on the scale of 1- unacceptable, 3-average, 5-outstanding. She said that these headings appear on all the rating sheets used by the College. The relevant experience factor takes into account up to five years of experience; interpersonal skills involves the manner in which the candidate deals with students in various levels of personnel at the College. The list of questions asked of each of the internal candidates as prepared by her was filed at the hearing. The candidates resumes had been received by the Committee before the interview. The answers to the questions at the interview helped the Committee to score in the categories on the rating sheet. After the interview the committee reviewed their ranking sheets and discussed the result of the interview. Each member of the Committee ranked the grievor the same for the first two factors at 3. Ms. Lillepold and Dean Kermin - 15 - ranked interpersonal skills at 1 and Ms. Smith ranked that factor at 2. Each of the Committee's ranking was the same for communication skills at 2 which is an unsatisfactory mark. Ms. Lillepold said that she ra~ed the grievor's interpersonal skills as unacceptable because of her demeanor in the interview. She said this position is the only support staff job in the President's Office and reports to the Assistant to the President, but does work for everyone else in the office including the President, the Vice-President and the Senior Administrator. -There are contacts with the Board of Governors and other senior Management of the College as well as with students and lower levels of the staff. The job requires team work with the others in the office and flexibility of the employee. She said the grievor at her interview was tense and aggressive and did not smile throughout the interview and her responses were weak. When asked why she wanted the position, she replied "it's the centre of power, enough said, isn't it." She felt the answer was abrupt and evasive and that the grievor thought the job was something other than it was and that her needs and requirements would be different than this job. The grievor had a misconception about the power component as it is a junior service position without power in that office. The grievor was strong in computer science but said her job at that time was temporary and she told the Committee that she was not interested in working with four Managers in the Computer Sciences Department. That concerned Ms. Lillepold as that office was similar to the President's office where there are a number of - 16 - managers and indicated her lack of flexibility. Ms. Lillepold said she scored communication skills below average because the grievor did not appear to listen and was evasive in her answers at the interview as well as at times being contradictory. She said the Committee discussed the scores which they had given to the candidate and found that neither of them were appropriate for this job. Because, however, the grievor met some of the qualifications with regard to the skill aspects, they decided to pursue references for the grievor to determine if they would contradict what had been concluded. A few days later she called the grievor concerning references and the grievor gave her some names for references. She said she did not receive any information which was contradictory to what the Committee had concluded. Both candidates were advised that this job would not be offered to them and that the College would proceed externally to fill the position.· She told the grievor that her interpersonal and communication skills were the reason why she did not obtain the job and that she could give her the feed back from the competition. Prior to the appointment for that purpose the grievor filed the grievance and that meeting did not take place. The position was advertised and in July the incumbent who was then a temporary employee in the Registrar's Office was successful in her application for the position. Ms. Lillepold said that she had attempted to mediate the dispute between the grievor and Dr. Atkins and had encouraged the - 17 - grievor to meet with him and accept an apology but that incident did not play a role in the Selection Committee for this position and said the incident was not discussed by them. The grievor's personal financial position was not mentioned at the interview in relation to her job movements within the College and she said that while Dr. Kermin had asked the grievor about the details of her moves in the College that' was not relevant to the Committee's determination of her application. She checked four of the eight references supplied by the grievor and nothing negative was reDorted. She said that Ms. Giffney had been at the College for only a short time in a temporary position, but she had graduated from a Secretarial College in Ireland and had held senior secretarial jobs involving relevant experience to this job and as well displayed at the interview with the Selection Committee exceptional interpersonal skills and handled the Committee's questions with ease. Mr. Kermin is presently the Dean in the Hospitality and Fashion Department of the College with which he has been employed for 22 years starting in 1966 as faculty, became a Chairman in 1983 and was the Principal of the College Street campus prior to his present position. He had been seconded to the President's office for about five months on a special assignment and was involved with that office on a daily basis throughout that period and was aware of the secretarial jobs in the office. He was involved as a member of the Selection Committee for the Secretary B position in the President's office and referred to the questions which had been - 18 - prepared for the Committee and his rating of the candidates. He said he was concerned with the number of positions held by the grievor in the six year period of her employment in an attempt to learn what she expected in the College. He thought it was unusual for a person to have that many jobs in a short period of .time and which was not in a lateral progression and he questioned the grievor because this was not the usual pattern in his experience. He considered the grievor's resume and that she had met the educational and experience requirements, but said her interpersonal skills were unacceptable as demonstrated at the interview. He said the grievor was very intense from the first question asked of her and was antagonistic to the Committee. This position requires the incumbent to receive telephone calls on a regular basis from people outside of the College who may be angry and upset which requires an exceptional skill to deal with and to relate their inquiries to the proper persons without argument. He felt the grievor was too intense, self-opinionated and would have difficulties in accepting the abuse which she could receive from such calls and to remain calm and act in the best interest of the' College. Dr. Kermin said he had concern with her communication skills because she had either not listened or really understood the questions of the Committee at the interview and her answers had not been relevant to the questions. He seriously questioned her ability to deal with problems arising from telephone calls to the President's office. He asked the grievor about her personal weaknesses and said she went into a lengthy discussion of the lack - 19 - of computer training in the College and responded that she had no real weaknesses. He said this position is the most junior in that location and is not a centre of power referred to by the grievor in the interview. He concluded that the grievor would not fit into this job in the President's office and would not have adequately handled the job as she did not have flexibility to deal with the problems which would arise. He said the primary reason for the denial of her job application was her lack of interpersonal skills. He said that while the grievor was the secretary for Dr. Hori and would in that position have contacts with faculty and students, the range of individuals of the contact would ~not be at the same problem level as the secretary in the President's office would receive on a daily basis. He had no involvement in the incident between the grievor and Dr. Atkins. Patricia Smith has been employed by the College for 18 years and is Assistant to the President and was involved in the selection process for this position as a member of the Selection · Committee. She referred to her rating sheet for the grievor where she concluded that the grievor did not have the interpersonal and communication skills required for the position. She said she felt that the grievor was so tense and inflexible, although she had been through many other job interviews indicated that conclusion. She told the grievor that the secretary would be working for her, the President and two Vice-Presidents on occasion and that as a junior position the requirement for which were very flexible. The grievor told them that she expected honesty and consistent feed back from - 20 - her Manager and did not like to take blame for things which were not her fault. In the President's office, Ms. Smith said that they all get blamed for things which occur and receive angry calls from persons outside the College which problems must be solved. She did not think the grievor would find it easy to handle those situations. The grievor did not know how long she would stay in this position. Her strengths involved her knowledge of computers and she said that the grievor did not respond to the question concerning her weaknesses. She said the junior secretarial position does not have much power but the grievor said she would' like to try it anyway. Neither internal candidate was selected for the position. Ms. Smith said that she has a good professional relationship with Dr. Atkins and had heard of his confrontation with the grievor and of her grievance, but she did not know the result of it. She agreed that there is a broad base of things which is dealt with in the office and there are personnel and administrative changes which may occur. She said there is a small team in the President's office who deal with the problems and get things done without strict applications of the lines and authority in that office. Her opinion was the grievor would not fit into this setting and referred to the grievor's response that this was a position of power which Ms. Smith felt was a peculiar answer and not applicable to this job. The grievor's evidence in reply dealt with her assertion that in her job she did deal with irate callers and was able to deal with the sensitive telephone calls. The grievor did contact - 21 - the references which she had given to Ms. Lillepold to ask if they had been contacted and what their responses were. She did not think that she would infringe confidentiality by doing so and expected that she would hear any negative responses. In addition, the Union sought to call in reply Dr. H~ri to support the grievor's evidence concerning her interpersonal skills. An objection was raised by counsel for the College as to the appropriateness of such evidence in reply as evidence of such nature should have been produced by the Union in its evidence in chief. Following submissions at the hearing, the Board ruled orally that the Union was seeking to split its case by the testimony of Dr. Hori which would be~improper reply evidence. The evidence sought to be introduced by the Union through this individual was intended to support the grievor's claim and her qualifications of interpersonal skills which was a factor involved in the job and at her interview. The evidence of Dr. Hori should, if at all, have been called in chief to allow the College to respond to that evidence. To allow the Union to support the grievor's evidence-in-Chief in reply by evidence which would be confirmatory of the Union's case in chief, cannot be allowed. The evidence to be called in reply must properly be found to be of a rebuttal nature and is permitted in the interest of a fair hearing to provide evidence to clarify or qualify new facts or issues raised in the Employer's case. The issue of the grievor's interpersonal and communication skills was apparent from the outset - 22 - of this matter. Dr. Hori's evidence which would go to that issue should therefore have been brought in chief so that the Employer could respond with particularity to that evidence. By calling this witness whose evidence would deal with material issue in the dispute in reply, would unfairly deny the Employer the right to which it is entitled to put in its evidence on the matters raised by the witness. Therefore~ Dr. Hori's evidence was considered by the Board not to be rebuttal evidence but to confirm the evidence given by the grievor. The submission of the Union is that the opinion of the Selection Committee was at variance with the job posting which includes'eight criteria which she satisfied. It was argued that it was difficult for the candidate to respond at an interview to the concerns expressed by Dean Kermin and Ms. Smith of the effect of the telephone work in the office which was given a disproportionate weight by the Committee. The questions for the candidates were according to Ms. Lillepold, prepared in advance but the panel agreed only on generalities. The concern with the grievor's job movements in the College was misplaced as they did not agree with her explanation and there was no evidence that those moves were a result of any deficiency in her qualifications but rather were attempts for her to gain broad knowledge of the College. It was submitted that there is an element of prestige to work in the President's office. It was argued that the grievor qualified as a whole for all of the criteria for the job and was probably overqualified for it. References were checked to determine if - 23 - anyone contradicted what the Committee had already concluded about the grievor's application. In the Union's submission the Selection Committee did not give proper consideration to the grievor's qualifications and did not obtain the information from Dr. Hori who had hired the grievor about five months prior to this job application. A large part of that job involved her dealings with students and public and in which she demonstrated interpersonal skills. The 30 minutes for the grievor's interview was not sufficient time to determine her qualifications. The primary basis for their rejection of the grievor was her performance at the interview while that process does create anxieties. The grievor felt the interview did not go well but in any event the grievor satisfied the requirements of the job posting. Ms. Lillepold's prior involvement with the grievor was limited to the incident with Dr. Atkins from which it was alleged that the grievor was judged negatively. It was submitted that the Selection Committee did not assess the grievor's qualifications in a fair and reasonable manner and she was therefore unfairly judged. It was further submitted that the grievor did not have a chance for the job at the interview as the Committee was not interested in her views and therefore the process of selection was flawed by the preconceived ideas of the Committee members. Because of the questions concerning her motives in her job changes, which were first challenged at the interview, the grievor was intimiated and became tense. The Committee's - 24 emphasis was placed on dealing with telephone calls which is one aspect of the job only and that was repeatedly referred to the exclusion of the other criteria for the job set out in the job posting, all of which the grievor satisfied. Reference was made to a to a decision of the Grievance Settlement Board (Delisle - May 1985); and to the awards in Re Durham ColleGe and OPSEU (Samuels, March 1988); Re Fanshawe ColleGe and OPSEU (Palmer, August 1980). It was submitted that as the grievor was the senior applicant the job should'be awarded to her without a re-run of the competition. It is the submission for the College that there was no evidence to support the grievor's claim of discrimination against her or that the panel was unfair. The Atkins incident was not considered or discussed by the Selection Committee. It was submitted that while the grievor was qualified in certain aspects of the job she was not sensitive to relationships with others at the College. Although she had abilities with systems and computers, that is not the requirement of this job which in the main, deals with people and problems with which the Committee felt she was deficient as she was over-concerned with her rights and not~ with others. The grievor was defensive and unresponsive to questions of the Committee and wanted to debate, challenge and argue. In that respect reference was made to the Atkins incident where the grievor demanded assurances from the College President. Ms. Lillepold's involvement in that incident was in attempting to - 25 - mediate the dispute and did nothing improper. It was submitted that there was an overemphasis on the import of that incident and there was no evidence to indicate that Ms. Lillepold was untrustworthy in making a selection for this job application. There is no' evidence of any specific relationship other than professional between Ms. Smith and Dr. Atkins whiCh reflects on the grievor's lack of interpersonal skills. It was submitted there was sufficient time given to the grievor at the interview to reply to the Committee's questions and explain any answers which she did not request. Ms. Lillepold requested references in order to be fair to the grievor. Each of the Committee members referred to the grievor's response that she thought the job was important because it had power which it does not have and it was concluded the grievor, who has certain skills, did not have the required qualifications for this particular job. The Committee was selected by Ms. Lillepold in accordance with the policy of the College and appropriate questions for the candidates were devised. Following the interviews, neither of the two candidates were accepted and both were given reasons and the grievor was given an opportunity for feed back from Ms. Lillepold which she did not obtain. It is the Employer's position that the grievor was found not to be acceptable for this job because she did not fit the job requirements and had a misunderstanding about the nature of the job which concerned the Committee members. The Committee used a - 26 - standard interview method by reviewing the resumes of the candidates, developing the questions for the candidates and conducting the interviews of the candidates on the same basis for each. It was submitted that proper consideration as required under Article 17.1 was given by the College which did not act in an arbitrary manner in rejecting the grievor's application. Reference was made to re Fanshawe College and OPSEU (Brown, May 1980); Re Seneca Colleqe and OPSEU (Samuels, October 1986); Re George Brown College and OPSEU (Kates, July 1986); Re Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. and U.A.W., Local 1535, 15 L.A.C. (3d~ 50 (Beck). The requirement under Article 17.1.1 of the Employer in filling vacancies is to give "proper consideration to the qualifications, experience and suitability about applicants in relation to the requirements in the vacant position." This has been described as a hybrid clause as none of the factors have primacy but all must be found to have been considered by the Employer in making the selection of the candidates for the vacant position. In the Durham Award the Board stated: "And proper consideration involves two elements, firstly the Employer must gather sufficient information in which to make a valid judgment of the merits of the candidates and, secondly, the Employer must give appropriate weight to various factors in light of the requirements of the posted job . . ." It was held both in that case and in the Fanshawe College award - 27 - that these provisions give a broad scope of review of the applicants in relation to the requirements of the posted position. The qualifications required of the Secretary B in the President's office, which is a position in dispute in this matter are set out on the job posting and the responsibiIity of the position is set out in the job description referred to by Ms. Lillepold. On June 20th, 1988 the grievor was advised by her that her application was rejected on the basis that her qualifications and experience did not meet the requirements of the position. While Ms. Lillepold offered to discuss the reasons for her rejection with the grievor, the grievor did not respond but filed a grievance on June 17th claiming the job of Secretary B and with a request that "Management cease and desist this discrimination because of a previous grievance." There are two parts to the grievor's claim therefore both relating to the same claim for the job but in effect requesting an order by the Board to the College arising from the alleged discrimination following a prior grievance dealing with the Atkins incident and with her claim that she was not given full and fair consideration in her job application. A charge of discrimination in these circumstances would if supported, be a serious error by the College in the application of Article 17.1.1 and which would demand correction. It is not sufficient, however, simply to make an allegation of wrong doing, it is necessary for the grievor to support the allegation with cogent and credible evidence to meet the burden of proof of the alleged cause which the grievor claims led to a rejection of her - 28 - job application. What the grievor has said is that because of her involvement with Dr. Atkins and her reaction which led to a grievance against him that incident was improperly taken into account by the Selection Committee in disposing of her job application and therefore she had been prejudiced by taking this other action. Ms. Lillepold was involved in the Atkins incident to the extent of attempting to mediate a settlement between the grievor and Dr. Atkins who was apparently prepared to verbally apologize to the grievor, but the grievor refused to meet with him and required written assurances. She then rejected the memo of Dr. Atkins, dated February 18th and brought the incident to the attention of the President of the College from whom she demanded future assurances in writing. Not being satisfied at that point she subsequently filed a grievance on March 3rd which was settled by the parties in October 1988. There is no evidence to conclude that Ms. Lillepold's involvement in attempting to resolve the incident at an early stage had any effect on her participation as a Selection Committee member in the grievor's job application in June. We accept the evidence that Dean Kermin had no involvement in the Atkins situation but only knew that a grievance had been filed. The grievor concluded from telephone conversations she heard that Ms. Smith had a relationship with Dr. Atkins which she felt would create a bias against her because of the earlier - 29 - incident with Dr. Atkins and that Ms. Smith would not be an objective member of the Selection Committee in her case. The Board finds no evidence to support such an allegation. We accept Ms. Smith's evidence that she had a professional relationship within the College with Dr. Atkins and they have social contacts but other than hearing about the incident, she did not know much about it although said it could have come to the attention of the President's office and the grievance was dealt with by the Human Relations Department. That evidence is not consistent with an attitude prejudicial to the grievor to the extent that Ms. Smith had deliberately prejudiced the grievor's job application in June because of what may have.transpired between the grievor and Dr. Atkins. That is a long leap of conjecture by the grievor which is not entitled to any probative value in this issue. What that allegation discloses however, is the grievor's particular sensitivity at least at the time of this job application, to what she perceived as negative influences to impede her career goals and which she was not prepared to accept. We find that the evidence does not support the grievor's allegation of discrimination against her because of her prior grievance and that claim fails. Pursuant to the College Policy in the filling vacancies, the Selection Committee was appointed to consider the applications for the Secretary B position. The list of questions for the candidates was prepared by Ms. Lillepold and discussed by the Committee prior to the interview along with the requirements of the position and the rating sheets containing the four headings and - 30 - dealt with in relation to those requirements. Each candidate was provided with the same time for an interview and the same questions and ratings were applied to each, neither of whom however, were found to be acceptable and the position was subsequently filled by Ms. Giffney. The grievor was found to have the general qualifications for the position but her application was rejected on the Committee's consensus that she did not have the required interpersonal and communication skills. Those concerns arise with regard to the qualifications stated on the job posting dealing with "demonstrated interpersonal skills" and "ability· to deal with staff, students, Board of Governors and all levels of Government" as well as an indication of the applicant's ability to work independently and "under pressure." Therefore the headings of the rating sheet used by the Committee did have a direct relation to the requirements of the position. The evidence is that each of the Committee members gave consideration to each of the factors of qualifications, experience and seniority set out in Article 17.1.1 with regard to the grievor's application, her resume and particularly the interview results. It is not unfair for the individuals who are seized with the obligation to make a selection for a job vacancy to devise and ask relevant questions of the applicants about their background and qualifications for the job and to pay attention to their answers and the manner of conduct in the interview in order to assist in making that selection. The Selection Committee was aware of the responsibilities in the Secretary B position in the President's - 31 - office as indicated in the job description which they had. From that description it is clear that this job is a junior support position in the office and while the President's office in general, is the core area for College operations, the secretarial job does not have any inherent power.attached to it, but rather requires the incumbent to provide secretarial services for that office as set out in the summary of responsibility in the job description. To that extent only would the incumbent be involved in the College operations and certainly could not be described as a position with any power in the sense of having particular authority. There is no doubt the location of this job would involve varied and interesting duties which also can, according to the evidence, be very demanding in relation to the required responses in dealing with the public and others seeking the attention of the President. As Ms. Lillepold indicated it was the Committee's opinion that requires a great deal of flexibility on the part of the incumbent in order to deal with such problems tactfully and in co-operation with the small team of staff in that office. In that context the grievor's response to a question at her interview that "this was the seat of power, enough said" without further explanation, struck each of the Committee members as peculiar and a misunderstanding of the job. In addition, the grievor's curt response to them indicated a lack of understanding of the question and was an example of poor communication. Whether this Board would develop the same conclusions concerning the grievor's application as the Selection Committee is - 32 - not the issue. In the administration of Article 17.1.1, the Board must determine if the requirements of that provision had been complied with by the College. We find that the Selection Committee was purposely attempting to adjudicate on the grievor's qualifications as she stated them to the Committee, in relation to the job requirements and in so doing properly considered the matters which they rated as.a result of the interview, the resume of the applicant and the follow-up references provided by the grievor. It is not the grievor's motive for her job application which is determinative and we can acceDt the gri~vor's interest in obtaining different jobs in the College in order to further her interests and knowledge of the College operations. Her personal interests is however, subject to the determination by the College of her qualifications for any of the jobs to which she may apply. In this case it was found on what we find was an objective standard, that her weakness at that time with interpersonal and communications skills did not satisfy the job requirements of the Secretary B in the President's office. The Selection"Committee reviewed all of the data required of it in consideration of the grievor's qualifications in relation to requirements of the position and rejected the grievor's application which resulted, we find, from a full consideration of the factors which the Committee was required to give consideration. In this process, as described, we find that the College gave proper consideration to the grievor's application and did not treat her unfairly in any way. The College therefore met the terms of Article 17.1.1. The grievor's allegation of discrimination failed - 33 - and that was a key to her allegation that she was treated unfairly by the College. That claim also must fail based on the evidence before this Board which we have accepted and set out above. Having regard to all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that the Union did not establish that the College was in violation of Article 17.1.1 as alleged. It is therefore the Board's award that the grievance is dismissed. DATED AT OAKVILLE, THIS ~ DAY OF , 1990. HOWARD D. BROWN, CHAIRMAN R. HUBERT, EMPLOYER NOMINEE O. H~ERT~ UN£ON-NOM±N~