Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPerenack 91-09-24 IN THE MATI'ER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: NIAGARA CO~ I FGE The Employer - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION The Union AND IN THE MATI'ER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF A. PERENACK ALLEGING IMPROPER FILING OF JOB VACANCY - OPSEU FILE NO. 91B225 Board of Arbitration: D.D. Carter, Chair J. McManus, Union Nominee A. Shields, Employer Nominee Appearances for the Union: D. Wright, Counsel M. Rose, President, OPSEU Local 243 A. Perenack, Grievor Apl;)earances for the Employer: J. Baker, Counsel R. Baddeley, Director, Community Services J. Balasak, Human Resources Manager G. Pevere, Human Resources Director A hearing of this matter was held at Burlington on June 13, 1991. AWARD 1 AWARD In this matter the grlevor, Ann Perenack, claims that under the terms of the collective agreement she is entitled to the position of Secretary B in the college's Community Services Division. This position was awarded to another employee, Carol Jones, who had considerably less seniority with the college than the grievor. Ms. Jones was notified of the hearing of this matter but elected not to exercise her right to attend and participata in the hearing as an Interested party, The job in dispute was posted by the college in November of 1990. That posting set out the following requirements: The position requires the provision of all secretarial and clerical assistance to 3 post- secondary programs including preparation of material on the word processor/microcomput'er, maintaining filing and Information systems, communicating with other personnel and agencies. The Incumbent will also assist the Secretary to the Director as required. The successful candidate must be able to work under minimal supervision, and have a thorough knowledge of all office procedures. In addition, this individual must be able to work effectively under stress of completing deadlines, have excellent interpersonal communication skills, and use discretion and sound Judgement in making decisions. At minimum, the incumbent must have 3 years progressive experience in a secretarial/clerical capacity, preferably in an educational setting. The grievor has been continuously employed by the college since March of 1972. She began as a Clerk Typist In the Registrar's office but later that year went to the Administration Department as a Technician B -- a job that she held until August of 1988. As a Technician B the grievor supervised students in the typing and shorthand labs run by the Administration Department. For a period of ten years from 1978 to 1988 the grievor, in addition to her responsibilities as a Technician B, also taught beginning typing for the Continuing E, clucation Program and for some post-secondary Office Administration specialist courses. During her employment as a Technician B she acquired secretarial experience by serving as secretary to the Director of the Office Administration Department for a period of ten months in 1983-1984. These secretarial duties were performed in addition to her normal duties as a Technician B. From August 1988 to the present time the grievor has been employed as a Clerk General D in the Scheduling Department. In this department the grievor has been responsible for scheduling classroom space for the post-secondary and continuing education programs as well as the booking of space for outside organizations. This job involves the exercise of a considerable amount of independent discretion as well as the requirement to meet constant deadlines. The evidence indicated that the grievor largely worked on her own in this job and was able to meet all deadlines. The grievor was one of four employees who were interviewed for the disputed position. According to college policy the Interviews were carried out by a committee. This particular committee was comprised of Robert Baddeley (the Director of the Community Services Division). Sandy Bain (his secretary) and Lynn Bird (a member of the Division's faculty). Prior to the interviews this committee drew up a list of twelve criteria considered to be important for the job and then a list of six questions to be put to each applicant during their respective interview. This list of criteria established by the committee emphasized interpersonal communication skills and good Judgement rather than technical proficiency. Similarly, the list of questions placed emphasis on these qualifications rather than technical skills. Robert Baddeley testified that, since all four of the applicants who were interviewed were full-time support staff at the college, it was assumed that they all had the necessary technical abilities to perform the job. Each of the candidates was interviewed on the same day and each was asked the same questions by the same members of the committee. Each of the members of the committee during the interview then rated each applicant on an individual score sheet containing the twelve criteria. At the end of the interviewing process the Individual scores were then compared and aggregated. At the this stage of the process it became evident that Jones had been given the highest rating by all three members of the committee. Since there appeared to be a significant margin separating Jones and the grievor as well as another employee with substantial seniority, the committee reviewed the interview process to determine if anything had been missed - an exercise referred to as 'sore thumbing'. After this review the committee decided to award the job to Jones because her score from the interview was substantially superior to that of the other three candidates. At this point Baddeley then'shared with the other members of the committee certain information about the grievor that had not been revealed to them earlier. Apparently at about the time of the posting Baddeley had been talking to Hans van der Slaght, the grievor's supervisor at that time, who expressed some concerns about the grievor's typing.--Baddetey then c~onsidered requiring her to take a typing test but rejected the idea when he was advised by the Director of Human Resources that he would then have to give the other candidates a typing test as well. Instead he talked to two individuals who had supervised the grievor when she had been earfier employed as a Technic[an B. One of these supervisors for whom the grievor had worked during the ten month period when she acted as secretary In 1983-84 expressed some concerns about her ability to function as a secretary. The other supervisor spoke very positively of her abilities as a teacher and expressed the view that she could have gone further as a teacher. Baddeley testified that he did not make inquiries about the other candidates, although Jones' supervisor had indicated to him that she would make an excellent employee in the posted position. He also testified that neither he nor the committee made reference to the personnel files of the applicants. He stated that the reason why the committee was not provided with such Information was in order to give all candidates a fair chance at the Interviews. The union argues that the process of selecting the successful candidate was flawed in two respects. First, the employer had not sought out information on the qualifications and experience in any systematic manner but, instead, had relied solely on the interview to determine who was the best candidate for the posted position. The result of this procedure was to put at a disadvantage those candidates who did not have good interview skills. Second, the emphasis that the employer placed on interpersonal skills and judgement in establishing the criteria against which the candidate would be judged did not accurately reflect the actual requirements of the position. According to the union, the technical aspects of the job were as important as interpersonal skills and judgement yet the criteria and questions used by the committee did not reflect their importance. Counsel for the union argued that the language found in article 17.1.1 of the collective agreement dictated a much more thorough examination of the prior experience of the candidates. In support of this argument he relied upon Canadore College (November 28, 1989, chaired by J.W. Samuels) as well as two decisions of the Grievance Settlement Board dealing with a similar type Of issue. Arguing that the grievor's qualifications, experience, and seniority had not been given proper consideration, counsel submitted that as in the Canadore College case, the grievor should be awarded the position. In resolving this grievance our starting point is article 17.1.1 of the cellective agreement. It reads: 17.1.1 Consideration - Bargaining Unit Employees When a vacancy occurs and employees within the bargaining unit at the College apply, the college shall determine the successful candidate based on the qualifications, experience and seniority of the applicants in relation to the requirements of the vacant position. Where the qualifications and experience are relatively equal, seniority shall govern, provided the applicant has the necessary qualifications and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position. The College need not consider probationary employees. It was not disputed that his provision contemplates a competition between applicants for a posted position. Greater seniority, therefore, only becomes relevant if it can be established that experience and qualifications are relatively equal. On the other hand, as pointed out in the Canadore case, this provision does require that the process of assessing experience and qualifications be carried ou~ in a manner that is fair to all candidates. It is this latter issue that has been placed squarely before this board. What we have to determine is whether the process was unfair to the grievor both because of the emphasis placed by the employer on Interpersonal skills and judgement and because of the weight that the employer placed upon the interviews. It is evident from the Job posting that interpersonal skills and judgement were the most essential requirements for the position. Given that the job required balancing the demands of three post-secondary programs as well as the needs of the Director's Secretary, it is our conclusion that these requirements did accurately reflect the nature of the job. Therefore, it was not unfair for the employer to place emphasis upon interpersonal skills and judgement rather than upon technical skills. Moreover, unlike the Canadore case, the applicants in this case were made aware right from the outset of the emphasis upon interpersonal skills and judgement through the terms of the job posting itself. More problematic, however, is the fact that the employer relied almost exclusively on the interview process to assess the interpersonal skills and judgement of the candidates. While the employer did obtain some additional information about the grievor's prior experience, it did not systematically seek out this type of information in respect to the other candidates. This approach raises the question of whether the process amounted to a fair assessment of the relative qualifications and experience of the grievor. It is clear from the evidence that the grlevor did not perform in the interview as well as the successful candidate. Unlike the situation in the Canadore case, however, the other sources of available information that were not taken to account by the employer did not point unequivocally to the fact that the grievor's qualifications were relatively 5 equal to those of the successful candidate. Indeed it appears that the employer decided to assess relative qualifications and experience solely through the interview process in order that the griever not be placed at a disadvantage. In this type of case it is a requirement of the collective agreement that the qualifications and experience of employees be fairly assessed. While In some cases such a heavy reliance on the interview could Invalidate the selection process, it Is our conclusion that In this case this process has not been fataJly flawed. The evidence did show that the successful candidate had considerable experience as a secretary and that she was well regarded by her previous supervisor. The union's evidence, wh~e demonstrating that the griever could perform the job with competence, did not establish that she had experience and qualifications relatively equal to those of the successful candidate. Therefore, we are not convinced that, even if the employer had made a more thorough inquiry as to the relative qualifications of the griever and the successful candidate, that the outcome of such an inquiry would have been any different than the Outcome of the interview process. For these reasons this grievance is dismissed. Dated at Kingston this 24th day of September, 1991. D.D. Carter, Chair (dissent to follow) J. McManus, Union Nominee A. Shields, Employer Nominee