Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1876.Broadbent.90-09-24~ ONDAR(O EMPZ. O¥~$ DE ~ COURONNE -.~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARiO GRIEVANCE C OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS '180 OUNOA$ STREET WEST, SUITE ~,100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG ;Z8 TELEPHONE/T~:L~PHONE: (4 ?6) 326- 1388 780, RUE DUNDAS~OUEST, BUREAU 2'100, TORONTO (ONTARIO), MSG '1Z8 FACSIMILE/TEL£COPtE : (4~6) 326-7396 1876/89 IN THE MATTER OF ~N ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Broadbent) Grievor - &nd - The'Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer - and - W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson M. Lyons Member D. Andersen Member. FOR. THE K. Whitaker GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors FOR TNE M. Failes EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING June 18, 1990 August 3, 1990 2 DECISION In this case the union alleges that the grievor, Richard Broadbent, was unfairly appraised and unjustly dismissed. Four separate grievances, each dated December 14, 1989, were brought before the Board. Three of these grievances relate to appraisals the grievor received, the fourth to his dismissal. The grievor sought an order directing that the appraisals be removed from his record as well as an order reinstating~him to his employment. The employer raised a preliminary objection as to the timeliness of two of the three appraisal griewances. While all four grievances were dated December 14, 1989, the appraisals in question are dated July 14, 1989, September 18, 1989, and November 16, 1989. In these circumstances, counsel for the employer argued that the Board should dismiss the first two appraisal grievances for being out of time. In the alternative, counsel argued that the Board should consider whether the doctrine of laches precluded the grievor from grieving the first two appraisals. Counsel for the employer also argued that the grievor was not dismissed from employment but was released pursuant to section 22 (5) of The Public Service Act. This section permits the release of an employee during the first year of his or her employment for failure to meet the requirements 6f the position. The employer argued that Mr. Broadbent had not been discharged,~ but was 3 instead released from employment. In these circumstances, it was the employer's view that the Board was without jurisdiction to hear a grievance relating to that release. However, counsel conceded that where it could be established that the release of a probationary employee had nothing to do with his or her suitability for the position in question and was in fact a disguised disharge the Board had jurisdiction to consider a grievance under section 18(2) of The Crown Employees Collective BarGaining Act. As noted by Arbitrator Swan: While the test has been differently expressed from case to case, we think that in essence the question before us is whether the Employer reasonably and in good faith exercised the authority in Section 22(5) of the Public Service Act to release the employee on probation, and did not seek merely to cloak a disciplinary discharge behind the release procedure. In essence, this is a question of fact, and therefore depends upon all of the circumstances of the case. (Clarke 443/82) Section 18(2) of The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining. Act also gives the Board jurisdiction to hear appraisal grievances notwithstanding failure to comply with .time limits in the collective agreement. Accordingly, the Board reserved its ruling on the arbitrabilit¥ of the disharge grievance and the timeliness of two of the appraisal grievance and proceded to hear evidencel Mr. Broadbent began his employment with the Ministry on February 20, 1989 after having successfully competed for the position of Mechanic Apprentice at the Ministry's shop in Huntsville. Prior 4 to joining the Ministry he worked at Canadian Tire, after having graduated from Huntsville High. Normally, it takes four years to acquire a mechanic's license, and this provincially regulated program combines work with study. Practical training was to take place at the Ministry's shop in Huntsville; the academic component was with the Ministry of Skills Development. Practical training came first, and Mr. Broadbent was assigned to assist the seven mechanics at the Huntsville shop. If all went well, he was scheduled to take the first of his academic courses in January 1990. All did not go well, and Mr. Broadbent's employment was terminated on December 8, 1989 by a letter dated November 21, 1989. The Union Case In brief, it was the union's position that Mro Broadbent performed as well as could be expected of an apprentice mechanic in the first year of the four-year training program. Mr. Whitaker also argued that the appraisals that he received were not only factually incorrect, but were performed contrary to the governing princiDles and standards. Moreover, it was Mr. Whitaker's submission that Mr. Broadbent was dismissed for reasons unrelated to the requirements of the Apprentice Mechanic's position. In the result, his discharge could not and should not be sustained. 5 The Evidence Mr. Broadbent was the only apprentice at the Huntsville shop. The duties of the Mechanic Apprentice are set out in a Position Specification. The purpose of'the position is: To work with and assist Journeymen Mechanics engaged in repairing and maintaining equipment in a District repair garage. Perform duties and receives training in Branch "A" of the Motor Vehicle Repair Trade. To attend trade school classes arranged by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The Position Specification summarily describes the duties and responsibilities of the Mechanic Apprentice. They are: 70% 1. Under direct supervision assist Journeymen Mechanics in the diagnosis, adjustment, repair or complete overhaul of all drive line components, (i.e. engines,~ transmission, differentials, rear axles), brake systems, steering assemblies and electrical systems. - servicing all equipment. - repairing hydraulic components. 15% '2. Under the direction of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, attends compulsory training classes at a provincial trades College. 15% 3. Performs other related duties such as: - cleaning workshop tools and equipment after use. - operating a variety of vehicles and other equipment as required for testing purposes. - cleaning work area daily. - recording details of inspection and repair work on garage work orders as required. - other related duties as assigned. Mr. Broadbent testified that, with one or two minor variations, this Position Specification accurately described his duties and responsibilities. According to Mr. Broadbent, when he began work at the Huntsville shop no one told him what he had to do to meet the performance. objectives of his position. Moreover, it was his evidence that when he first began work he spent a considerable part of the time on the road working alone servicing ministry vehicles. By the late spring/early summer he was spending most of the time working in the shop, and his primary assignment was assisting a Journeyman Mechanic named Tom Perry. It was the grievor's contention that most, if not all, of the problems that he encountered were the result of a personality conflict with Mr. Perry. Mr. Broadbent found Mr. Perry difficult to comunicate with and generally difficult to be around. Notwithstanding a real effort on the grievor's part to get along with Mr. Perry he was unable to develop a satisfactory relationship with him. According to Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Perry was not very helpful when he asked a question. Indeed, Mr. Broadbent testified that Mr. Perry would deliberately mislead him. When the grievor questioned him about this he was told to "mind his own business." 7 Mr. Broadbent testified that his working relationships with other mechanics were cordial, and that he generally thought things were going well. Mr. Perry did not testify. Unfortunately, the employer did not think that things were going well, and this was reflected in the first appraisal that Mr. Broadbent received in Ju~y 1989. It appears that Mr. Broadbent ~ was advised several days in advance about the appraisal by Mr. James Moss, and it took place in Mr. George Markle's 'office. Mr. Moss, the shop foreman, was Mr. Broadbent's immediate supervisor, and Mr. MarkIe was the Equipment Supervisor. Mr. Broadbent first testified that when the meeting took place the employer presented a completed appraisal form. The appraisal, dated July 14, 1989, clearly states that improvements were necessary in the grievor's work habits. Reference is made to Mr. Broadbent requiring extra time for simple tasks resulting in supervising mechanics becoming impatient. The appraisal form advises Mr. Broadbent that he had to show considerable improvement in the next month if his sponsorship in the Apprentice program was to be continued. Moreover, the appraisal refers to an "attached sheet" indicating areas where improvements were required. (There was some contradictory evidence as to when exactly Mr. Broadbent received this "attached sheet." We are of the view, however, that this issue is not of any great significance to the determination of this case.) According to Mr. Broadbent, neither Mr. Moss nor Mr. Markle elaborated on the concerns expressed in the appraisal. They did not, for instance, go over specific assignments that Mr. Broadbent had performed in order to illustrate to him how he was taking extra time to perform simple tasks. They did not, in another example, specifically advise Mr. Broadbent how to improve his performance. They just told him to improve, and to speed up his work. Mr. Broadbent testified that he told Mr. Moss and Mr. Markle that he did not think he was being fairly evaluated, and that he believed that the problem stemmed from his relationship with Mr. Perry. Nevertheless, he signed the appraisal form and did not avail himself of the opportunity to make any comments. He also testified that he did not think it was appropriate to challenge the appraisals because he was an employee and they were the boss. Mr. Broadbent was given the "attached sheet," which in fact was a letter with a list attached, referred to in the appraisal. This letter and list elaborate on some of the employer's concerns. The letter states that the employer was concerned that Mr. Broadbent did not appear to be grasping mechanicial techniques, resulting in low productivity and requiring excessive supervision. The letter continued: 9 You however indicated that you feel comfortable, in the position of Apprentice Mechanic and wish to continue working toward acquiring your trade certificate.I In an attempt to assist you in your efforts we pro~ose to give you training and practice on specific tasks, see list attached, and assess the results at the end of approximately one month.. ~ · The attached list sets out a number of tasks that M~. Broadbent was expected to perform prior to the next appraisal. Mr. Broadbent testified, however, t h I · hat e could already p~rform these tasks at the time he was given the list. The one other requirement on the list was that he obtain a classl D driver's license, which he did obtain prior to the next appraisal. Mr. Broadbent also testified that he told the employer that he did not have difficulty retaining mechanical techniques ~nd that the supervision he required was not excessive. Moreover, it was his evidence that notwithstanding the representation in the "attached sheet"'that he would be given assistance, no such assistance was offered. The second appraisal took place on S~ptember 18, 1989.I Again, it was performed by Mr. Moss and Mr. Markle ' Mr. Broad~ent thought that he had been doing well since the first appraisa!l, although he continued to have difficulties in his relationship with Mr. Perry. [ Mr. ~Broadbent's view of the situation was not, however, shared by the employer. This appraisal indicates a lack of improvement in grasping mechanical techniques and difficulty in'following verbal 10 and written orders. The appraisal notes that while Mr. Broadbent worked at a steady pace, it was a slow one, even taking his inexperience, into account. It observes that he was having a hard time getting along with his fellow employees, causing him to wander from the work area at times. Mr. Broadbent testified that he only wandered off two or three times, and that was in order to avoid an incident when Mr. Perry was being abusive to him. The appraisal concluded by giving Mr. Broadbent a further six weeks of training. It stated that failure to show adequate improvement could result in the Ministry discontinuing his sponsorship in the Apprenticeship Program. Again, Mr. Broadbent signed the form'without making any comments. Indeed, he testified that he signed it before discussing it. This time, Mr. Broadbent asked about the box on the form where employees could comment, and was advised that he could write whatever he wished but "that it didn't mean much." Accordingly, he left it blank. What discussion there was of the form was limited to generalities. Nothing much changed, according to Mr. Broadbent, following this appraisal. He did not receive any additional training. He did, however, get the impression that things were going well, and this was because in OCtober he went to see Mr. Moss and asked him how things were going. Mr. Moss said that there "were no big problems." Mr. Broadbent wanted to be sure because he was 11 intending to buy a new ·truck. He was obviously concerned about job security. Mr. Broadbent testified that Mro Moss told him that buying a new truck was a good idea. In these circumstances, Mr. Broadbent was very upset when he received his third and final appraisal on November 16, 1989.. While acknowledging that Mr. Broadbent was willing to accept tasks and to do the best he could, this appraisal reiterated the concerns previously expressed (as well as a new one about lateness) and recommended his dismissal. Mr. Broadbent was terminated effective December 8, I989 by a letter dated November 21, 1989. The following week he filed the four ~rievances brought before the Board. .Lee Teske, a Journeyman Mechanic and· Shop Steward in the Huntsville shop also testified on behalf of the grievor. He testified that Mr. ·Broadbent worked with him approximately one third of the time between his date of hire and his discharge. Mr. Teske testified generally about some of the difficulties the grievor experienced with Mr. Perry, and also testified about his own experiences with him. Mr. Teske had no complaints about the quality of Mr. Broadbent's work, although when .asked by the Assistant Foreman about Mr. Broadbent's work in the late fall of 1989 he said that he did not think "his work was too bad." Mr. Teske did not know ~t the time that this information was being collected for the purpose of the appraisal. Mr. Teske testified that Mr. Broadbent did not require excessive supervision, but noted that he asked a lot of questions. He did not find Mr. Broadbent forgetful; rather he found that Mr. Broadbent would double-check things in order to avoid making mistakes. Sometimes this annoyed him, but most of'the time it did not. As Mr. Teske explained, it is by asking questions that an apprentice learns. When asked by Mr. Whitaker whether or not it was true that supervising mechanics were becoming, impatient with Mr. Broadbent, he said that he would not agree with that statement, but nor would he disagree with it. Mr. Teske was of the view that Mr. Broadbent was achieving the rate of progress to be expected by a first-year apprentice. Moreover, he testified that in the fall, prior to Mr. Broadbent's dismissal, he asked Mr. Moss how Mr. Broadbent was doing. The reason he asked was that he knew that Mr. Broadbent was planning to buy a new truck, and there were rumours that he was going to be let go. According to Mr. Teske, Mr. Moss told him that Mr. Broadbent was "okay," and as a result Mr. Broadbent went ahead and Durchased the new truck. The Employer's Case When Mr. Broadbent was cross-examined by Mr. Failes, a slightly different picture emerged. Very simply, the portrayal of a unilateral appraisal process was altered. For instance, the griever had testified that that there was no discussion prior to being presented with the completed first appraisal. In fact, there was a discussion and.the employer's concerns were brought ~to his attention. Mr. Broadbent also admitted that the employer's concerns about his performance' were brought to his attention in informal conversations on other occasions with Mr. Markle, and with Mr. Steve Detta who began. Working as the Assistant Shop Foreman in August. Moreover, . it turns' out that with few exceptions Mr. Broadbent spent most of the period.prior to his first appraisal working in the shop, not as he testified, alone'out on the road. There were other inconsistencies in his testimony as well, but the Board is of the view that they were the result of forgetfulness, not of any deliberate intention to mislead. indeed, that the employer had made some effort to assist Mr. Broadbent in his position was made apparent by the evidence of Mr. Detta, a 'bargaining unit employee who appeared under subpoena. Mr. Detta began work in the Huntsville shop on August 8, 1989. He has been with the Ministry for fourteen years, twelve of which as a Journeyman Mechanic. He has been directly involved in the training of four Apprentice Mechanics, as well as co-op students and others. ' Days after Mr. Detta began work in the. Huntsville shop, he'was 14 called upon to assume, on an acting basis, the Foreman's position, and in that position he received numerous complaints from various mechanics about the quality of Mr. Broadbent's work. Mr. Detta also had many personal experiences with Mr. Broadbent. Generally, he found that Mr. Broadbent satisfactorily performed single simple instructions, but the same could not be said when he was asked to do more than one thing at a time. In that case, Mr. Detta would have to write the instructions so that Mr. Broadbent would not forget. For example, Mr. Detta would be required to write a list when he wanted Mr. Broadbent to change the clearance light on a truck, then check the fluids and fire extinguisher. If he did not do so, Mr. Broadbent would forget. In another example that Mr. Detta described to the Board, Mr. Broadbent would appear in the morning and ask Mr. Detta for an assignment. Upon investigation, 'Mr. Detta would find that Mr. Broadbent had not completed his work from the day before - indeed, that work would be sitting unfinished on Mr. Broadbent's work bench. When he would ask Mr. Broadbent why he had not finished the previous day's work, he would not provide any excuse. In .the result, Mr. Broadbent required constant supervision. Mr. Detta attempted to assist Mr. Broadbent with his memory problem, and they had numerous discussions about it, as often as several times a week. Nevertheless, there was little 15 improvement. In Mr. Detta's view, remembering a short list of simple instructions was .to be expected of an ApprentiCe Mechanic. The problem, however, was more than a memory one. Even when Mr. Detta wrote down simple instructions, Mr. Broadbent would still have to come back for further 'instructions. And, as Mr. Detta explained, being a mechanic is more than just doing what is on the work order. Mechanics must have a feel for the job, they must be able to fix a part, but at the same time be generally aware and troubleshoot, i.e~, identify and repair other problems. 'rMr. Broadbent did not, in Mr. Detta's view, have that feel for the job. More seriously, Mr. Detta described an incident in some detail that reflected on the grievor's mechanical aptitude. The incident involved the cleaning and reconstruction of a steering box. Mr. Detta testified that he asked Mr. Broadbent to do it because it was the most simple steering box on the market and it was an appropriate exercise to assess Mr. Broadbent's Suitability for this kind of work. Unfortunately, Mr. Broadbent was not able to perform 'the job satisfactorily. In Mr. Detta's view it was a basic job that an Apprentice Mechanic should have been able to perform within three or four months. At the time of the incident Mr. Broadbent had been on the job more than six months. The Board heard other evidence that reflected on the grievor's ability to follow and understand instructions as well as his potential for mechanical work. Mr. Detta testified that while it was correct that Mr. Broadbent had worked a lot with Mr. Perry, by August that was no longer the case, and any problems that he might have had were not the result of interpersonal difficulties with a mechanic. Mr. Detta testified about his efforts to give Mr. Broadbent simpler jobs to build confidence. This was not successful. There were other problems, including the growing frustration of the other mechanics with Mr. Broadbent. While Mr. Detta agreed that mechanics may not like having an apprentice around because it slows them down, he testified that they all understand their obligations to train apprentices, and that it was only because of his problems catching on and doing the work that the mechanics in HUntsville became frustrated with Mr. Broadbent. In Mr. Detta's view Mr. Broadbent just did not have what it took to become a mechanic. In Mr. Detta's experience, Mr. Broadbent's development as an Apprentice Mechanic was well below that of other Apprentice Mechanics at a similar point in their apprenticeship. Mr. Detta testified that he participated in the appraisal process in that he had a number of discussions with Mr. Broadbent about his work, and he also gave information to Mr. 17 Moss and Mr. Markle about Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Moss, a mechanic since 1972 and Foreman at the Huntsville Shop since 1985, gave evidence. In brief, he testified about the information-gathering process that led to the preparation of the appraisals, and he gave the Board a number of other examples of problems with Mr. Broadbent's work. There is no point in describing them in any detail in these reasons for decision. Suffice it to say that the problems identified by Mr. Moss were identical in character to those testified to by Mr. Detta. With regard to the problems with Mr. Perry,. Mr. Moss testified that after 'the grievor complained about Mr. Perry he had a word with him and asked him to be patient with. Mr. Broadbent~ In Mr. Moss's view, the problems with Mr. Perry were in large part the result of Mr. Broadbent's inability to catch on and do the work, although he conceded that Mr. Perry could be difficult to work with. The fact, however, that other mechanics also became frustrated with Mr. Broadbent indicated to Mr. Moss that the ~problem transcended a personality conflict. As was the case with Mr. Detta, Mr. Moss had a number of informal 'consultations with Mr..Broadbent and attempted to assist him in his work. These attempts, the informal discussions and the three appraisals failed to result in the kind of progress Mr. Moss expected from an Apprentice Mechanic, and he recommended to Mr. 18 Markle that Mr. Broadbent be released. For what it is worth, Mr. Moss testified that Mr. Broadbent's lateness during the last appraisal period had nothing to do with this recommendation. The recommendation for release was based on his inability to follow and understand instructions and his inability to grasp mechanical techniques. Mr. Moss denied telling either Mr. Broadbent or Mr. Teske that Mr. Broadbent was doing "okay" when approached about Mr. Broadbent'$ intention of buying a truck. In fact, his evidence was that he told Mr. Broadbent that "it did not look good." George Markle also testified on behalf of the employer. He is the Equipment Supervisor at the Huntsville Shop. He has been in that position for five years. Prior to that he was the Foreman and prior to that he was the Assistant Foreman. He has been a mechanic for 27 years. He testified that he told the grievor what was expected of him the very first day he arrived on the job. He also gave evidence about the appraisal process. In early April Mr. Moss came to him and reported his concerns about Mr. Broadbent. .Mr. Markle investigated, and in his discussions with various mechanics found those concerns to be widespread. He spoke to Mr. Broadbent informally prior to the first appraisal in July and, as Mr. Broadbent testified, at the $ first appraisal. He told him that he did not think that he was paying sufficient attention or grasping the requirements for the 19 position. The same message was repeated over the course of the summer, and at the September appraisal meeting. Mr. Markle continued to monitor the situation, and the problems did not go aWay. While Mr. Broadbent could perform basic tasks in an acceptable fashion, he did not demonstrate the ability to learn and develop as a mechanic. Mr. Markle had other informal discussions with Mr. Broadbent over the course of the fall, and he discussed his progress with mechanics on the shop floor. In the end he concluded that Mr. Broadbent did not have what it took and he formed the intention to terminate his employment. He recommended this course of. action to the District Engineer and his recommendation was accepted.· Argument Mr. Whitaker argued that there was no rational relationship between the observations made about the grievor's work performance .and the conclusion that he was not meeting the requirements of the position necessary to authorize a release under the Public Service Act. In counsel's view, to justify a release reference must be made to the position specification. If the grievor could meet the requirements of that specification, then a release could not be justified. Very simply, Mr. Whitaker argued that the position specification, 20 reproduced above, set out the requirements of the position. Counsel took the position that this specification indicated that Apprentice Mechanics were to work 70 percent of the time under the direct supervision of journeymen mechanics, and the problems that Mr. Broadbent experienced were the result of his being required to work on his own. Mr. Whitaker argued that the employer's expressed concerns with Mr. Broadbent's performance were not germane to his suitability for the position because the position specification required him to work under the direct supervision of mechanics. In that Mr. Broadbent was assessed based on tasks given to him to perform on his own, Mro Whitaker argued that the release should be set aside. In Mr. Whitaker's view, the type of supervision that this position specification contemplates is the apprentice working in tandem on a common project with the mechanic. This was to be contrasted with what happened to Mr. Broadbent, when for instance he was given a job and told to go to his work bench and do it. Mr. Whitaker also argued that the three apraisals should also be set aside in that they were not performed in accordance with the Ministry's policy and the governing principles. The Performance Appraisal Policy of the Ministry defines the performance appraisal process as follows: 21 ' Performance appraisal is a three-step process whereby a manager and an employee: - define the performance that is expected of the employee durin~ the next review period; - discuss the performance on an ongoing basis during the review period; and. - evaluate job performance at the end of the review period. Moreover, the Policy provides that: The Ontario Government is committed to a policy of effective management of its employees. In support of this commitment, managers are responsible for guiding the performance of 9mployees under their supervision. Performance appraisal is an essential element of this management process and it is therefore the policy of~ the Ontario Government that the performance of every employee is appraised regularly. Employees are responsible for their own performance and are entitled to know on a regular basis: - the performance expected of them; - how they are performing; and - the resources available to them to attain '' the expected performance. Under this Policy probationary employees are to be appraised within the first six months of service according to certain guidelines. The employer is to: 1. Define performance expectations that are: - set by manager and employee at the beginning of each review period; - re-examined during the review period and revised where appropriate; - specific to each job; - consistent with the position description; - results oriented; - measureable. 2. Discuss actual performance with the employee on a 22 day-to-day basis throughout the review period. 3. Base the evaluation at the end of the review period on the employee's work performance and accomplishments. 4o Discuss the performance evaluation at the end of the review period with the employee and where the appraisal is written, provide the employee with a copy. 5. Include in the performance evaluation at the end of the review period a summary rating of the employee's performance so that the employee has a clear understanding of whether overall performance has exceeded, met or not met the expectations of the job. 6. Indicate, where performance expectations have not been met, what is required to meet these expectations and whether improvement has .been demonstrated during the review period. 7. Include in the appraisal of managers, their operation of the performance appraisal program. Mr. Whitaker argued that the evidence before the Board supported his position that not only were the appraisals factually flawed, but they were also performed contrary to the governing principles. In his submission, the appraisals were not used to set out management's concerns in a constructive and informative fashion, but to document management concerns in case disciplinary action was later required. The generalized criticisms and absence of any positive comments in the last two appraisals provided, in counsel's view, evidence of this. Mr. Whitaker argued that the latter two appraisals should have set out in a specific fashion the concrete steps that the grievor had to take in order to improve his performance. Mr. Whitaker also submitted that the promised assistance was never provided. Mr. Peterson argued~ that Mr. Broadbent failed to meet the requirements for the position. The position specification did not say that the Apprentice Mechanic was required to be able to follow and understand instructions, but this requirement must be read in. The position specification did not say that the Apprentice Mechanic was required to demonstrate a mechanical aptitude, but this requirement must be read in. 'These requirements were, counsel argued, so basic to the position in question that they did not need to be written down. Counsel for the employer agreed that the position specification did say that Apprentice Mechanics were to work under the supervision of journeymen mechanics, but argued this did not mean that the apprentice should never be given assignments 'to perform on his or her own. It was obviously contemplated that apprentices would do some work on their own, albeit under the direct supervision of a journeyman mechanic. Moreover, the position specification could be read so as to require direct supervision for part, but not all, of the responsibilities of the Apprentice Mechanic. There was, in counsel's view, nothing wrong and everything' right with the employer trying to bring Mr. Broadbent along by assigning him simple tasks and evaluating his performance with respect to them. Counsel argued not only was there no evidence of Dad faith on 24 behalf of the employer, there was, in fact, considerable evidence of good faith. Mr. Broadbent was not, for example, assigned tasks beyond the scope of an apprentice at his stage of development. He received counselling and supervision. The emplgyer worked with him to solve his problems. The employer brought Mr. Broadbent's problems to his attention informally and formally, and did so in a manner consistent with the Ministry policy. Decision We find that Mr. Broadbent was given notice of the appraisals and he had the Opportunity to participate in the appraisal process. While he may not have been given specific notice of the performance objectives of his position the day he was hired, he was certainly aware of them in general terms. Moreover, the first two appraisals clearly defined the performance that was expected of him if he was to remain in the Mechanic Apprentice Position, as well as the deficiencies in his performance as perceived by the employer. These expectations were reasonable and consistent with the requirements of that position. The appraisal process itself was fairly conducted. While it is correct to say that mechanical aptitude and'ability to retain and implement instructions are not listed on the Position Specification, we agree that these characteristics are indispensable to success in the apprenticeship'program. We also take a broad view of the term "under direct supervision assist Journeymen Mechanics." In our view, this contemplates exactly the kinds of assignments given to Mr. Broadbent. It is inconceivable that it was intended that APprentice Mechanics always work directly and immediately under the supervisio~ of a Journeyman Mechanic. For the apprenticeship program to work, apprentices must obtain experience working on their own on progressively more difficult and complex tasks assigned by mechanics. In performing these tasks they learn and they also assist the supervising mechanic. Moreover, it is our view that while the apprentice program is designed to turn apprentices into journeymen, it also provides the employer with an opportunity to evaluate potentiaI mechanics. Where a person is clearly not suited for the apprenticeship program the employer is entitled to release that person from employment. There is simply no doubt that by the~time of the first appraisal Mr. Broadbent was'aware of what he was supposed to be doing and what his shortcomings were. We find that the employer made a reasonable effort to assist Mr. Broadbent in his efforts to become a mechanic. The fact is that the job did not work out, and the main reason for this~was Mr. Broadbent's inability to follow instructions and to grasp mechanical principles. We do not find that his difficulties with Mr. Perry were responsible for the 26 problems that the employer identified and brought to Mr. Broadbent's attention. Nor do we find, and we note the conflicting evidence on this point, that any detrimental reliance somehow affecting the release decision was created by the cDnversations that took place concerning Mr. Broadbent's intention to buy a new truck. There were two main problems with Mr. Broadbent's performance, and these two problems were identified in the appraisals. They were also the subject of informal discussions between the grievor and representatives of the employer. While the promised training did not take place in a formal fashion, the evidence is that the employer made a real effort to bring Mr. Broadbent along by assigning him simple tasks in order to build his confidence and gauge his ability. As counsel for the employer pointed out, it is very difficult to provide a precise list of objectives when the problem is an inability to follow and understand instructions, and a lack of mechanical aptitude with respect to implementing them. In this case, supervision was increased and an effort made to assist the grievor. That the effort was unsuccessful is no reflection on Mr. Broadbent. He was a willing worker, and tried hard. The job was not for him. As this became increasingly apparent, it was brought to his attention, and when improvements were not forthcoming he was properly released. This release is 27 not a colourable sham, but a bona fide case of a good faith employer determining that a probationary employee had failed to meet the requirements of his position. There was a rational relationship between the observations made by management and the conclusion to release. It is hard to see what other conclusion could have been reached. In the result, all four grievances are dismissed. Dated at Ottawa this 24,th day of September 1990. William Kaplan Vice-Chair "'h ,,' ~. ,;... / //.,.: /M. Lyons ,/ -- ,.,,' Me~er D. Ander~n Member