Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0344.Rovisan-Pozega.05-10-18 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~ Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs Board des employés de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2004-0344 UNION# 2004-0234-0119 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rovisan-Pozega) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Marilyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Rena Khan Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING October 6,2005. 2 Decision The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex and Vanier Centre for Women. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at mediation; failing which, they have agreed to utilize an expedited arbitration process. In preparation, each party provides the Vice-Chair with written submissions one week prior to the hearing. Those submissions include a statement of the facts, as well as the argument (supported by any authorities) on which each party intends to rely. At the hearing, oral evidence IS not called, although the Vice-Chair may request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through 'regular' arbitration. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior to, and at the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. In this case, the grievance asserts that the employer is in violation of the collective agreement by failing to award a position of Accounts Payable Clerk to the grievor, Milka Rovisan-Pozega (competition number CS-1073-03). Although two positions were vacant, the grievor acknowledges that a full-time classified applicant was properly successful in obtaining one of the positions. The grievor had experience in the area. She also had more unclassified service than the successful candidate. The union asserted that the employer had commented on her marital status during the interview in violation of the Human Rights Code and had advised her that there was a problem with her references which she denies. The grievor attended the hearing and made additional assertions. She asserted that marks were improperly deducted from her scores for using pencil when her computer was not set up properly. She also asserted that the successful candidate had been previously employed by the Superintendent, implying that the individual had received special treatment. 3 According to the grievor the comment regarding her marital status came in the form of congratulations. The employer noted that there had been some confusion as the application had been made under a different surname and some clarification and verification was required. In either event I am not satisfied that the comments amount to a breach of the Code. Marital status was not taken into account in any way in determining the outcome of the competition. I have reviewed the competition file and the evidence and submissions of the parties. The employer is entitled to, and is required to utilize the competitive process in assessing candidates. The grievor's results in the competition mayor may not reflect her actual abilities. However I am unable to conclude that the interview process was inappropriate or lacking. It can be the case that knowledge of, and suitability for a position are not well communicated by someone unfamiliar with, or uncomfortable in an interview and testing process. Even assuming that the grievor was told that there was a problem with her references, it is clear from the competition file that the employer did not contact the grievor's references. Her application did not proceed to that stage in the competition as she scored fifth out of sixth in the selection process, comprised of a written and oral component. If one were to add marks deducted for the use of pencil, the grievor's marks would still fall significantly below those of the successful candidate. There is no evidence that the employer favoured the successful candidate for improper reasons. It is apparent that delay in providing the grievor with information, including her relative scores in the competition has contributed to her view that the competition was mishandled. However on the basis of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the selection process was in any way Improper. This grievance is therefore dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 18th day of October, 2005. :J