Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0168.Lechocki & Muir.92-05-01 , - ~ ;4 J ~':""","c~~~êt~~1r g~6~~MPLOY~ES . EMPLOYÈS DE LA COURONNf DE L 'ONTARIO , 'i ' .. . ".' GRIÈVANCE COMMISSION DE 11'11 SETTLEMENT ~ REGLEMENT . BOARD' DES GRIEFS rao DUNDAS STRé;ET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G ¡;:8 TELEPHONE /TELEPHON£: (416) 326- !J88 180, RUE DUNDAS OUE'ST, SUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO}. M5G lZ8 FACSIMIŒfTËLËCOPIE: ¡-z 161 326-1396 I I I I l 168/90, 171/90 ~ IN TH2 HATTBR OP AN ARBITRATION I I Under f I I I THE CROD EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT I Before THB GRIEVANCB SBTTLBKBNT BOAR.D BETWEBN CUPE Local 1750 (Lechocki/Muir) . Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of "Ontario (Workers' Compensation Board) Employer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson J. Carruthers Member D. Clark Member POR THE J. McDonald GRrEVOR Counsel Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Jarvis "- " EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors I BEARING November 29, 1990 December 13, 1990 April 19, 1991 September 30, 1991 December 5, 1991 . ~ '~r~~~~_~____.~.~~~".,..,.....~__..._,..-,--._......,...---,......._ -:~_ --:c-------'"".-..,....¡...,,-__-.--.._-...-.-....-.,-'"'r--_,....-~...._7"'..,_-.. --------------~~-~~-- ---- --- - -- ~"- .......-..., . , ) \ I èl .J to This proceeding arises from the grievances or Ms. O. Lechocki and Ms. C. Muir. The grievors alleged therein that they were improperly denied the position of Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker in the context of a competition held in September and Octobe r , 1989. They both asked that they be placed in the position applied for. The Job Description for Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker is appended to this award as Schedule ~ A' . A 'Notice of Vacant Position' was posted in September, 1989. The posting, which was Province wide, encompassed one hundred and thirty-four (134) positions including six (6 ) in Thunder Bay and ten ( 10) in St. Catharines. The basic requirements for the 'position of Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker were listed as fo11ows: , ( . ) Post secondary education in a ·related field of study \ 1 preferred or the equivalent of specialized training or experience. ( i i ) Demonstrated skills in interviewing and basic vocational rehabilitation counselling. (íií)Proven interpersonal and communication skills. ( i v ) Strong organizational and administrative skills. ( v ) A genuine interest in returning workers to suitable employment. (vi) Readiness to undertake directed reading and special training in vocational rehabilitation. (vii)Willingness to travel occasionally and ability to provide own transportation. 1 :t () .'-~.\ ; 'j ...~-~ ,~ -;........~ 'õ The posted position formed part of a new Vocational Rehabilitation Strategy which had been adopted by the Employer. Its literature included the following statement as to the role to be performed by the Vocational Rehabilitation Case Workers: "A majority of the Board's current vocational rehabilitation professïonals will become Vocational Rehabilitation Case Workers, charged with the general responsibi1ity of assisting workérs to the point where they will be able to return to work. They will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the worker's aptitudes and vocational rehabilitation needs and will ensure that an appropriate agreement is negotiated between the worker, the employer, the treating physician and the Board. This agreement will specify the duties of each party to return the worker to work. To ensure that timetables and goals are met, case workers will monitor the agreement and will facilitate a renegotiation of the agreement if n_ecessary. Case workers will provide basic vocational and social counselling services to the injured workers and will assist workers with bas i c 'yocat i.ona 1 skills such as job search techniques, resume preparation, and assessment of job requirements. Where the worker is facing social difficulties that are not the result of the injury, case workers will arrange support for the worker from individuals and organizations from outside the Board. In addition, caseworkers will arrange for assistance from as many of the fallowing professionals from- inside and outside the Board as seems necessary in each case. I "- .. "- III .. .. .. ill III: It " . III .. . .. .. .. .. .. " " .. .. .. .. .. III .. .. .. . III II- III; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . "- .. lI- 1"- "- " . .. ... II. .. .. "- "- "- "- .. "- "- . .. . "- "- III "- "- "- .. "- "- "- .. .. .. II. "- . .. "- "- "- "- .. , . . . .. .. . ... .. . .. .. "- The caseworker may arrange for specialized assessments of injured workers' training and education nee.ds . These will be provided by Training and Education Needs Assessors, who mayor may not be Board employees, and by external organizations. If training or further education is needed, the case worke r, in cooperation with the worker and the employer, wi 11 arrange on-the-job training. If formal education programs are required, they will be provided by external Trainers and Educators. .. .. .. "- "- "- "- "- "- "- '" ... :I" .. .. "- .. "- ". "- "- II "- .. .. '"- "- "- .. .. .. "- III "- .. "- "- .. .. .. ... ... ... (Exhibit 1 , Tab 10) 2 u_ .- .. ....-.............--~ ~--,._--'+---.--~.............__ -'...-- -----""_'-' .- ..-.,--_'1"-= ~,,,,:,......,.. ~'f -. -- -.,....-.-- - ....,........, ~~,..-..,---- -, -----;-.-.- -~è:'_-''''''-'''''''''''"''!-:~~~:- -;07~!. ~;--~::'~:r"""."~""""'~'--:-'"''''''''~::--<- .. _.........-y~' ...':"'_""..... ... _.__..-. . -,~. ~-'-" -....,'- ~-. -- - . " . Ms. Lechocki applied for positions ln both Thunder Bay and St. Catharines. Ms. Muir restricted her application to I the former loca;:.ion. Both grievors participated in an initial prescreening interview conducted by telephone on October 6, 1989. They were asked a series of questions by Ms. S. Ricard, the Human Resources Specialist in the Thunder Bay/SUdbury Region. After considering the respective responses, Ms. Ricard concluded that both Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir lacked the requisite qualifications for the position sought. In her judgment, the grievors did not possess related experience. The grievors were informed of this concìusion on October 12, 1989. Both grlevors raised concerns as to the treatment of their applications. Thereafter, Mr. D. Blunt, the Manager of Program Services decided to allow them the opportunity of a second i-nterview. Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir were advised of this during the afternoon of October 13, 1989. Their interviews were schedule~ for the following morning. The grievors each received a formal interview on October 14, 1989. The selection panel was comprised of Mr. G. Elvish, the Supervisor of the Vocational Rehabilitatio~ Department, and Ms. L. Mosley, the Team Coordinator of Claims. These individuals asked both grievors a series of thirteen ( 1 3 ) questions. The form used contained the suggested responses. The grievors' answers were recorded by both members of the panel. ~.., r . Elvish and Ms. Mosley subsequently discussed the answers given and 3 ·---:---... ¡"-"~.'\ '1 (.' ) J ., ...~ - ; I '~T ... agreed on a single score for each of the questions. Ms. lechocki , -. .-' . was given a total score of 33 out of a possible 118 marks. Ns. Muir received a score of 26 out of 118 marks. The panelists considered the grievors' resumes and personnel files. Mr. Elvish also consulted with Mr. G. Dionne, their immediate supervisor. It is unclear from the evidence presented as to whether he actually checked with the references provided. Ms. Ricard advised the grievors'on October 19, 1989 that they would not be offered positions as Vocational Rehabilitation Case Workers. Ms. Mosley subsequently conducted post interviews with Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir on October 25, 1989. Ms. Lechocki also received an initial telephone interview in respect of the position in St. Catharines. It was her evidence that she was informed she would be accorded a second interview. The Employer's policy; however, was that only one ( 1 ) interview would be granted vis a vis those candidates applying for jobs at . . more than one (1) loçation. This stance was premised, at least in part, on the fact that an identical matrix was being used across the Province. From the perspective of the Employer a candidate, such as Ms. Lechockí, would recelve an undue advantage were they permitted to sit a second interview. Instead, much of the relevant information concerning this grievor's Thunder 8ay application was forwarded to the panel reviewing positions in St. Catharines. This included the caseworker interview summary; the selection matrix; the selection criteria and scoring breakdown; 4 - - -.... ~..,-.;;:>"'"'""_::'" .,"""'!"......... _~·'-.--o -;-'"";-:t-'I_ ro --,-~~_-_ ~_ ,., ~_~ -. _, '_----."-_-----....-._ P, ~~---~-. _----...-__ .___ _~ _" ~ ._. ~__ ___~~_.____.,_____._. ~., _._______ ___~__ __~_.L ~____ ______ . -, - ", :.. j " , J . interview comments; the grievor's application and resume; a Performance Review of September 27, 1989; and a consent for reference check. This material was reviewed by Ms. C. Pelka and Ms. M. Foreman. They ultimately concluded that Ms. Lechocki was unqualified for the position given her lack of related experience. They shared Ms. Ricard's assessment that Ms. Lechocki's background was primarily in the clerical field. The panel reached this conclusion notwithstanding the opinion expressed by Ms. M. Edmunds, the grievor's former supervisor and reference. Ms. Edmunds advised that Ms. Lechocki would make a good case worker. Ms. Pelka testified that she did not speak to anyone in Thunder Bay concerning the grievorls performance during the interview of October 14, 1989. She described the score received by the grievor in respect of such interview as "poor " Ms. Lechocki was subsequently advised on October 20, 1989 that she was unsuccessful in her application for one of the St. Catharines,positions. Ultimately~ a number of external candidates were hired as Vocational Rehabilitation Case Workers. Grievances were filed by Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir in early November, 1989. Ms.. Lechocki commenced her employment with the Worker?' Compensation Board in October, 1986 as a Records Control C 1 e rk 1 . In 1987, she received training as an Identification and Registration Clerk 2 and as a Switchboard Operator and 5 ---.... ":::) .. ("'. .) (",c_. ·0 ~...L_..' -\.":!.} '; Receptionist. She subsequently performed as a.backup in these two (2) positions in respect of periods during which the incumbents were absent. As of March, 1988, Ms. Lechocki worked as a Records Clerk within the Vocational Rehabilitation Department. In the Spring of 1989, she received additional tråining in the position of Rehabilitation Service Registry Controller. Ms. Lechocki testified that she filled in for the incumbent for approximately two (2) weeks in May, 1989. In August, 1989 this grievor became an Acting Rehabilitation Service Registry Controller. The duties performed in the above-mentioned positions were documented in Ms. lechocki's resume. The duties were described therein as follows: Records Control Clerk 1 .. Control dropped off claim files through a charge in charge out procedure and deliver them to the Rehabilitation Service Registry Controller or to the Vocational Rehabilitation Administrator as per markup on the jacket. Pick up files and correspondence from Admi n i strator " Service Registry Controller and Field Rehabilitation Counsellors and action accordingly. Distribute incoming correspondence to appropriate Field Counsellor or to the Service Registry Controller. File V.R.D. files accurately in numerical sequence in appropriate. caseload. Make jackets for new referrals. Photocopy reports and memos as required, and distribute accordingly. Answer general telephone enquiries or take messages. Maintain statistics and perform other duties as assigned or required." Identification and Reqistration Clerk 2 Backup position " Identify incoming numbered and unnumbered documents by checking to ensure that the necessary identifying information is present, direct those documents that are incomplete or cannot be identified 6 . - _ r _T _ c,~·,-.-· _~_~~+___·_"._r_~_~_''''''''_'''''''~.''~~_'''''~ ___~___",_,__,,,,,,,,,,.~._____ ,__., ~.""-_ _......._ ._____..~... .. __ ...._.·~__.._h__.__ ., __0'.. ___u____. ._. .._ __ __ ____ ___.____T .0__ _.___.. ___..___~_____._"..._.__ -~ , to the 1.0. and Registration Clerk I, determine if a document relates to an existing record, verify the geographic identifier and' update the claim locator file through the visual display termina11 register new claims using the a.C.I.S./ F.r.S. procedures, determine that no previous registered claim exists, when necessary register a document as a new claim, label, and jacket newly registered claims for distribution, sort and deliver claim files after identification and registration, maintain statistics and perform other duties as assigned or required." Switchboard Operator and Receptionist Backup Position .. Receive incoming calls and direct caller to appropriate staff member by using the visual display terminal to assist in locating callers file, answer general enquiries, record telephone messages, recelve and define the nature of in-person enquiries and refer to appropriate staff member, maintain statistics and perform other duties as assigned'or required." Rehabilitation Service Reqistrv Controller Backup Position "Determine entitlement to rehabilitation services and refer injured work~rs files to Field Rehabilitation Counsellors. Review, complete, and process agency account payments. Review and process commutation requests fram injured workers. Answer enquiries from injured workers, employers, agencies, unions, and other interested parties in-person or by telephone. Maintain statistics and perform other duties as assigned or required." Ms. Lechocki conceded that the first three (3) positions listed above were largely clerical in nature. She acknowledged that they did not require the exercise of counselling, negotiation, or vocational planning skills. Similarly, she agreed in cross- examination that her work in the latter position, 10 respect of eligibility for rehabilitation services and commutations, was completed pursuant to comprehensive written guidelines. Ms. Lechocki further a~reed that, as a consequence, counselling skills were not required for that aspect of the job. 7 -1 (\ .t----....·· \..J ( ~ì J 'f Prior to the commencement of her employment with the Workers' Compensation "Board, this grievor worked in a series of clerical positions. Between June, 1976 and September, 1978, Ms. Lechocki was a Clerk A with Winnipeg Hydro. She was required, inter alia, to answer phones; respond to in-person customer enquiries; screen applicants; type deposits; and compile reports. From May, 1979 to December, 1981 , Ms. L8chocki was a Clerical and Regulatory Clerk for Revenue Canada. In this capacity, she sorted and filed income tax returns; identified returns which might require adjustment; received, examined and allocated non- designated correspondence; resolved routine refund problems; and searched for missing returns. Lastly in the period March, 1983 to October, 1986, Ms. Lechocki worked as a Licence Issuing/Cashier Clerk for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. This position. required her to answer in-person I and telephone enquiries; process applications for renewal and new vehicle registrations; process basic driver 'licensing transactions; update vehicle and driver databases; process applications for trip permits; collect and register fees; and prepare financial records and bank deposits. Ms. Lechocki enrolled in an Honours B.S.W. program at Lakehead University in September, 1989. She elected to pursue her degree on a part-time basis. More specifically, she started with just one (1) course which was offered on a single evening each week. The grievor acknowledged that she had taken only 8 - -,- "'>.- ......_.~ r._ "'~~··r' _.... ~~......,_~ ...._. ..........-c c_---=-~ ~.' .":'_ -'i:''''- -r"- ~ . ------.,..-:,. ~""'.~~_p. ,,- _.!,""_~ ----r:-..-,..'" _.-___.,....~.....-- _ ..._.__...... __ __~ ,,", ~ _..__~'~T__~."......_....,.._.., _...- r_ '......_ __.... ............... .~~_. _ _'.,,~ r..~'£"~~.__"_.'~~~"" _ _ __ _.~_~~_.u_,_...u_ -" ' ~\ f- ) / ~ three ( 3 ) to four (4 ) classes as of the date of the instant competition. In summary, it was Ms. Lechocki's evidence that she met the basic requirements set out in the job posting. Further~ she asserted that her prior experience with the Workers~ Compensation Board and other employers eqùipped her with the skills to effectively perform the job of Vocational Rehabilitation Case Worker. She suggested that any gaps in her skills or knowledge would be rectified by the seven (7) weeks of training to be given to the successful applicants. Ms. Muir commenced her employment with the Workers~ Compensation Board in September, 1986 as an Identification and Registration Clerk. In August, 1988, she became an Acting Receptionist Counsellor. That position was reclassified to Acting General Counsellor in June, 1989. Ms. Muir's responsibilities In these positions were described in her resume as follows: Identification and Registration Clerk I " - identify all incoming unnumbered documents with a claim number - register new claims - obtain information by either contacting the i nj ured worker or employer by telephone or written correspondence - prepare new claims by sorting and batching - establishing new firms - maintaining a daily statistical report " Actinq General Counsellor .. - council (sic) injured workers and employers - assist injured workers and employers to complete forms 9 /'C'.) ~. ,o¡ i. ;I f . ) - -- . .j'/ .~ - answer enquiries received 1n person and by telephone - refer complex enquiries to the appropriate staff member - write memos and call other Regional offices to obtain pertinent information - maintain accurate fal.law-up system and ~aily statistical reportso ., Ms. Muir acknowledged that the former position did not involve the exercise of counselling or negotiating skills. Further, she was not required to act as a ~ecision maker in respect of specific client files. This grievor advised that she would see approximately eight ( 8 ) to ten ( 10) workers per day in the latter position. She would provide these individuals with information relating to vocational rehabilitation and, if necessary, would make an appropriate referra 1 . Ms. Muir testified that she was not r~qu;red to make decisions on specific claims nor was she responsible for the provision of vocational ·rehabilitat.ion assistance. Similarly, she was not expected to negotiate with others involved in the rehabilitation process. Ms. Muir indicated that she was required to prepare continuity letters of between three ( 3 ) and four (4) pages in length. ihese letters, 'wh i ch conta i ned information collected from the claímant, would be forwarded to a Claims Adjudicator who would then determine whether the particular claim should be reopened. Prior to the commencement of employment with the Workers' Compensation Board, Ms. Muir served as an Office Clerk with New Method Cleaners. She was involved in the preparation of customer invoices; the pricing and filing of bills; and the servicing of customers over the telephone and in the office. 10 I n _r ~...,...,.,,:,""~_"""_. ~ -~-......yT,,"=,-r:--:''''''''' '"'----_......!_-:~-.-~·;-r_:.,;.--·'·7~, u., ~~~,.~'~.... .,..+...............' '"'"_~ ..._....._ .... .,.,~ ....__. ..."...... ,....._.. ....,.-.,...-,,_...... .. ~ __.......,...~ _4__ ~ ___ ___ __ __ ___. ___~____.___ ______ . _ . n on__ " ;- ) .~ , ~ In September, 1989, Ms. Muir started a Psychology Course for credit towards a Social Work Certificate. The classes for this course were scheduled on two (2) evenings each week. The grievor agreed this was the sole post secondary course, of a related nature, that she had been inVOlved with as of the date of the interviews. A number of other high school or internal COurses were cited in her r'esume. These included drug and alcohol abuse; assertiveness training; interpersonal communications; and stress management. It was the thrust of Ms. Muir's evidence that she too met the basic requirements set out in the posting. She believed that she could effectively assume the responsibilities of the Vocational Rehabilitation Case Worker given the skills, knowledge and experience generated through her past employment. Ms. Muir also suggested that any shortfall or perceived deficiency could be remedied through the seven (7) weeks of training previously referred to. Ms. Mosley, in her evidence, reviewed the various positions previously held by Ms. Lechocki. In her judgment, this grievor's background as a Record$ Control Clerk, an Identification and Registration Clerk 2 and as a Switchboard Operator and Receptionist did not constitute the type of experience required by a Vocational Rehabilitation Case Worker. She described the experience gained through these positions as largely " clerical". 11 ...-~......~ ,"-"\ -, , , oj .j . 'T ~ Ms. Mosely reached an identical conclusion in respect of ~ls. Lechocki's employment prior to her start with this employer. Ms. Mosley conceded that the Rehabilitation Service Registry , Controller position would have given Ms. Lechocki "insight" into the rehabilitation process. She noted, however, ,that the grievor had just been in the position for about a month and a half prior to the competition. It was suggested that, as a consequence, Ms. lechocki had an insufficient opportunity to become fully experienced. In summary, it was Ms. Mosley's assessment that Ms. lechocki lacked experience in the areas of caseload management, counselling and negotiations. Further, it was her opinion that the grievor had only limited experience in written communications and in dealing with the public. She also noted that Ms. Lechocki did not seem to have a good grasp of the essential components of the case worker function during the interview. In short, Ms. Mosley did not consider the grievor as suitable for the position sought. Ms. Mosley presented similar evidence in respect of Ms. Muir's application. She categorized this grievor's experience as an Office Clerk and as an Identification and Registration Clerk 1 I as distinctly " clerical". She acknowledged that Ms. Muir had direct contact with injured workers while acting as a General Coun,se 11 or. It was her position, however, that such contact was ·12 _._ ___ _ n..._' _ -- --.--- ~.._-------- ~ " \ , ) simply for purposes of collecting and dispensing information. She stressed that the grievor would not maintain the 'file after the initial client contact. As noted earlier, this contact would lead to a referral if the matter required further action. Ms. Mosley stated that the General Counsellor's involvement with injured workers was not as intense as that required of the case- worker. Ms. \'-'\081ey te8t-ified that, in her judgment, Ms. Muir lacked the necessary experience in caseload management, vocational planning, public speaking, and in dealing with the disabled. She stated further that the grievor had only limited knowledge of the new Vocational Rehabilitation Strategy. She believed that the grievor had also displayed some confusion during her interview as to the components of the case worker position. Lastly, Ms. Mosley questioned Ms. Muir's ability in the area of written communications. She suggested that certain of the continuity letters prepared by this grievor were lacking in content. Ultimately, it was Ms. Mosley's assessment that Ms. Muir lacked the skills, knowledge and experience required of a Vocational Rehabilitation Case Worker. I I The relevant provisions of the collective agreement read: I 5.04 Interviewinq of Applicants I (1) All applicants within the bargaining unit shall be interviewed either in person or by telephone. I 13 I ------- /~_-........ 11 : - -.~ '<,-._-",./ ~) ~ ( i i ) Employees without seniority will only be considered if I the vacancy exists after all applicants with seniority have been considered and none have been found to be I qualified. I 5.05 Role of Seniority in Promotions and Transfers 1 Both parties recognize: (a) The principle of promotion within the service of the Employer. (b) That job opportunity shall increase in p ropo rt.i on to length of service. (c) That the primary considerations in filling a vacancy are Qual.ifications and ability to perform the required duties in a éompetent manner. (d) Therefore, in making staff changes, transfers or promotions, where qualifications and ability are relatively equal, seniority shall ~e the determining factor. '8ri efl y stated it was the position of the Union that both grievorsmet the basic requirements for the Vocational Rehabilitation Case Worker position. It w~s submitted that, as the grievors were qualified, they were entitled to the position pursuant to artiCle 5.04 (ii) of the collective agreement. The Board was asked to conclude that the Employer violated the agreement when it opted to select external candidates. Counsel further argued that the Employer placed excessive.emphasis on the interview scores and that it ignored other evidence relating to I the 9 t~ i evars ' ability to perform the job. It was also asserted I that the interview, in certain respects) was like a test and I that) accordingly) the grievors should have been advised of that I fact and been given a reasonable amount of time to prepare for I 14 ~ ._-,-~~~ <. _. ....-..._ ~.__.__.~ .._______~._.__~L__.____._~R·__________ ________ ~ " .~ p I I .I . same. Counsel noted that it was particularly important to racall that the grievors had been unable to obtain a copy of the joq. description prior to the interview. He suggested that their performance therein would have been enhanced had they been able to review the job description prior to October 14, 1989, Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the Union that the Employer's decision should be reviewed against the standard of correctness rather than against a standard of reasonableness. By way of remedy, the Board was asked to place the grievors ln the position sought. In response, it was the position of the Employer that the selection panel had correctly determined that the grievors lacked the qualifications and ability to perform the required duties 'in a competent manner. Counsel argued that neither grievor possessed the requisite degree of re1ated experience. In this regard, it was submitted that the low interview scores were consistent with the level o'f experi ence reflected in the resumes. Counsel further argued that, while the matrix was the most important factor, it was not the only factor considered by the selection panel. We were urged to find that, in any event, the other factors would not have rehabilitated scores of twenty-two ( 22 ) and twenty-eight percent ( 28% ) . Counsel asserted that by definition a competition is the equivalent of a test. He suggested, however, that the grievors as internal candidates with access to the necessary resources should have had an advantage in 15 - ------- - _.----------_.- -------------------------------------------.-.-.------------- ;.1 I~ ~'. I ) , ., .j ~' responding to the questions asked. Lastly, it was noted that Mr. Elvish, Ms. Mosley, the Branch Secretary and all of the Rehabilitation Counsellors had a copy of the job description. Counsel submitted that Ms. Lechocki could have gone to greater effort to secure the document. He argued that Ms. Muir was somewhat negligent in simply relying on her colleague's assertion ~ that a job description was not available. Lastly, the Board was \....... asked to give considerable deference to management's decision. ! It was the position of the Employer, simply put, that our role was to determine whether the decision made was one that could reasonably be reached in all of the circumstances. The parties referred the Board to the following. awards: Re Corporation ~f District of Maple RidQe And Canadian Union of Public Emoloyees. Local 622 (1979), 23 l.A.C. (2d) 86 (HiCkling); Canadian Food And Allied WOrkers Union. Local 175 v. Great Atlantic And Pacific Company of Canada limited et al. (1976), 76 CLLC 332 (Ont. Div. Ct. ) ; Re St. Catharines General Hospital And Service Employees' Union. Local 204 (1975), 10 L.A.C. (2d) 258 (Adams) ; Re Wellesley Hospital And Ontario Nurses' Association (1989), 5 L.A.C. (4th) 55 (Weather;ll); Re Corporation· Of City Of Ottawa And Canadian Union Of Public Employees. Local 503 (1988), 1 l.A.C. (4th) 60 (Thorne) ; Re Workers' Comoensation Board Of British Columbia And WOrkers' ComDensation Board Employees' Union (1989), 4 L.A.C. (4th) 141 (Hope) ; Gave 1 , 145/80 ( Barton) ; Cross, 339/81 (Jolliffe); Anderson, 105/86 (Wright) ; Simmons, 483/82 (t-1cLaren) , Sedore, 250/83 ( De 1 i s 1 e ) ; 8ent, 1733/86 (Fisher) . 16 ,~. .1--.....\ . - It is unnecessary to address the prescreening process used by the Employer in'this instance given the fact that both grievors were ultimately granted a second int6rview. We find, however, that the questions asked by Ms. Ricard reflected the basic requirements established in the job posting. We are satisfied that these requirements were reasonably related to the position of Vocational Re~abilitation Case Worker. The Board - notes that Ms. Ricard's assessment of the grievors' responses was virtually identical to the conclusions reached by the selection panel vis a vis the extent of related experience. Similarly, the Board finds that the questions asked during the interviews were appropriate for the position in issue. We consider that such questions reflected the duties and responsibilities of the job of Vocational Rehabilitation Case Worker as outlined in both the oral evidence and t~e position description. We have not been persuaded that the questions, in substance, amounted to "a test" as submitted by the Union, To the contrary, we think the questions c6uld properly be posed during the course of an interview without the need for any advance notice. While it is clear that the grievors only received one ( 1 ) days notice that they would be given a second ìnterview, the Board concludes that they had sufficient opportunity tb prepare themselves. We note in this regard that their applìcations were dated September 29, 1989 (Lechocki) and I October 2, 1989 (Muir). They were not advised as to the results I í7 ,. :.,,', ...~ ,li.'\>¡ ':'."'i.~.,-;, ,,-\ ~¡.; " ~ (") f:.~ \. . I '.....,} ',-:.;;-/ i':' of the prescreening until October 12, 1989. This interim period could, 'therefore, have been used for preparation purposes. Additionally, the grievors had the evening of October 13, 1989 ·to engage in this type of effort. The Board has been persuaded that there were sufficient in-house resources available to enable Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir to prepare for the interview. Wh i 1 e we have some concern over the fact that they did not have the job description prior to the interview, we are satisfied that one could have been obtained with greater effort on their part. We accept Ms. Mosley's evidence that the document was readily available in the office. The Board has been unable to isolate any material errors ln the scoring of the two ( 2 ) cand i dates. . We find that the selection panel fairly and properly assessed the grievors' responses. Notwithstanding this conclusion, we must express some reservation about the use of "consensus " scoring, particularly in the context of a competition inVOlving oniy two (2 ) pane1ists. -We consi der it preferable for each member of the paneì to separate1y evaluate the responses given by the candidates. That form of evaluation permits a Board of Arbitration to better assess the areas of agreement and disagreement on the panel. In other circumstances, the lack of such evidence could serve to undermine the result of the selection process. In this instance, however, we are satisfied that the scoring reflected the fair and reasonable assessments of both Ms. Mosley and Mr. Elvish. The 18 -----, . ---.... \ ~ , / I Board does not agree with the suggestion that Ms. Mosley was i unqualified to sit on the .panel. We note that much of her past work in the area of c 1 aims had exposed her to the rehabi 1 i tat i Oiì process used by the Employer. Additionally, she had received training in vocational rehabilitation. albeit not to the same extent as those actually performing the work. Lastly, her experience was complemented by that of Mr. ~lvish. As stated previously, he was the Supervisor of the Vocational Re~abilitation Department. Ms. Muir testified that her interview was disrupted by construction being done outside of the building. At one point, both she and the panel members were asked to go outside and move their vehicles. Ms. Muir appepred to suggest that this distraction affected her score. Such an assertion is difficult to assess. Nevertheless, we think that if she felt disadvantaged by the events, some mention of this would have been made at either the interview or the post interview. Ms. Mosley advised that the issue had not been raised at either time. While the Board recognizes that interruptions of the kind referred to could p rej ud.i ce interview performance, we have not been convinced that they had a material effect in this instance. The Board is satisfied that the. result of the competition was not premised entirely on the interview scoring. Clearly, the scores achieved by Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir were low and would suggest that they were not qualified for the position. The 19 ,1 . /~\, ,~-\ , I i. .j -- ; , J ~ Employer did, however, look beyond these scores. Ms. Mosley, testified that the panel reviewed the resumes and personnel files. Additionally, Mr. Elvish spoke with Mr. Dionne, the immediate supervisor. Ms. .Mos 1 ey initially stated that she believed Mr. Elvish had also contacted the references provided by the grievors. In cross-examinationJ she acknowledged that Mr. Elvish only made specific mention of a discussion with Mr. Dionne. Unfortunately, the Board did not.hear directly from Mr. Elvish on this point. In any event, we are satisfied that the Employer did not exclusively rely on the interview scores in reaching its determination that the grievors were not qualified candidates. The Union did not strenuously object to the procedure used in respect of the St. Catharines position. As noted earlier, Ms. Pelka and Ms. Foreman haçi all of the material documentation generated by the Thunder Bay process. Additionally, Ms. Edmunds was contacted for a reference. In the circumstances, we cannot find fault with the EmployerÎs decision to grant only one (1) formal interview in respect of candidates applying at more than one location. We agree that to do otherwise could have granted such candidates an unfair advantage given the use of a Province- wide matrix. In the Board's judgment, neither grievor had post secondary education in a related field of study to the extent contemplated 20 .................... -~ ~ , " ...) by the posting. As noted, Ms. Lechocki had just enrolled in an Honours B.S.W. course on a part-time basis. Very few classes had been taken as of the date of the competition. Similarly, Ms. Muir had just started a course for credit towards a social work certificate. The other courses referred to in her resume were high school or internal offerings. We have not been persuaded that the level of the grievori education, as of October 1989, equipped them to meet the challenges of the position. No mention was made during the course of the hearing of the grievors having engaged in specialized training that would serve as an alternative to the educational requirement. Further, the Board after reviewing all of the evidence is unable to find that· either Ms. Lechocki or Ms. Muir possessed "equivalent" experience. In the case of the former, we agree that her background was ~ssential'y clerical in nature. The Records Control Clerk.1, Identification and Registration Clerk 2, and Switchboard Operator and Receptionist positions all required the exercise of clerical', receptionist and secretarial skills. These positions alone would not lead to the development of the skills necessary to effectively perform the caseworker position. This same comment would apply equally to MS. Lechocki 's ~ork prior to 1986. The Board recognizes that this grievor's role as a Rehabilitation Service Registry Controller would provide exposure to the rehabilitation process. Over time, it could also lead to the development of related skills such as interviewing technique. 21 ,~ '--ì ,:.----....... (" . ( ~~~;) , ~.'--./ :t' We note again, however I that Ms. Lechocki had only been in the position for a short while. Her limited tenure therein would nqt have equipped her with all of the skills required in the position sought. In the case of the latter grievor, we also conclude that her prior experience was largely clerical in nature. Her work" as an Identification and Registration Clerk 1 and as an Office Clerk was entirely clerical. Those positions would not have prepared Ms. Muir for the case worker job. The Board accepts that the General Counsellor position would bring this grievor into direct contact with i nj u red workers- for purposes of co 11 ect i ng relevant information and making an appropriate referra 1 . This contact did not, however, involve the provision of any vocational rehabilitation services. After considering all of the evidence presented, this Board concludes as follows: ( i ) Neither grievor had prior experience or skills in vocational ,counselling and assessment. ( i i ) Neither grievor had prior involvement in vocational rehabilitation planning. More specifically, they had not . previously developed, monitored or adjusted a formalized individual vocat i ona 1 rehabilitation plan. Indeèd, Ms. Lechocki was unclear as to what was meant by this term. (i i i )Neither grievor had previously coordinated' internal and external resources in the context of such a plan. ( i v ) Neither grievor had previously negotiated with injured workers and employers with respect to the return of the former to suitable employment. Ms. Lechocki did not appear to understand the concept of "hierarchy of objectives" which is at the core of the Vocational Rehabilitation Strategy. Ms. Muir, ln her evidence, seemed to possess only a limited understanding of the aforementioned strategy. 22 _." . ~ ~ "'_ . _. T__T'___',__._..~... ..~, ._._.._______.. __ ..~. . ---. , . , . 1 I / ./ .J ( V ) Neither grievor had previously managed a case load. Ms. Mosley testified that the average case load for each case . worker would be between sixty (60) and one hundred ( 1 00) . While the grievors had demonstrated organizational and administrative skills în their prior positions, we have not been persuaded that such skills had been developed to the level required in this position. (vi) Neither grievor had fully developed their interviewing or written communication skills in the positions previously held. In our judgment, the absence of these skills and abilities rendered both grievors unqualified for the position or Vocational Rehabilitatio~ Case Worker. We consider the skills listed to be fundamental to the competent performance of the required duties. It follows that the Employer was then at liberty to consider and select external applicants. The Board has not been persuaded that the existence or seven (7) weeks of training eliminated the need for candidates to satisfy the basic requirements. Rather, we accept Ms. Mosley's view that such training ~as designed to "enhance skil1s the candidates already have". For a 11 of these reasons, the Board has been persuaded that the Employer made the correct decision in this instance. Given this conclusion, it 1$ unnecessary to say more about the appropriate standard of revieW'. Notwithstanding the result in this case, the Board was impressed with the ability and committment shown by Ms. Lechocki and Ms. Muir in their prior positions with this Employer. Ultimately, we have concluded that the position sought required skills qualitatively different from those they possessed in October, 1989. For purposes of future career advancement, we 23 ~. . - . encourage them to continue with. their efforts to further their education. For a ì ì of the above reasons, the grievances are denied. Dated at Toronto ,Ontario this 1st day of May, 1992. ·?f),CJ.¡~ V, r.J~A I M.V. Watters, Vice - Chairperson t CD d- ~~ <'2...?' ê--, . Carruthers, 'Union Member ,~ A~ ~-ÇL/ i. D. Clark, Employer Member 24 , Çc"ed~ 1(.. ~ ~ J I . - July t8, 1989 ,. i . . I OI9I~ICII: CLIENT SERVICES rEPARTMDl1': INTEGRATED SERVICES OR REGIONAL OPERATIONS . RANCH: INTEGRATED SERVICE UNIT OR REGIONAL OFFICE --./ ~ITLE: VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION CASE~ORXER J\. .ruMBER: UMBER SUPERVISED: NIL- _EPORTS TO: SUPERVISOR, INTEGRATED SERVICE UNITS/TEAM COORDINATOR, REGIONAL OFFICE "ALARY GRADE: 071-072 - CORE FUNCTION: ~'e Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker is to function as an integral member of the rehabilitation team whose focus 1s to manage the rehabilitation process by lcilitatlng worker employability and return to work through: basic counselling _~d assessment; the development and implementation of dynamic, goal-oriented Vocational RehabilitatIon Plans; utilization of both internal and external -~sources and services as needed; and by monitoring the Plan's progress on a imely baSis. - i (PIeAL DUTIES: - The Board's approach to vocational rehabiltatlon stresses early, accessible and ltensive services delivered 1n a team approach. The process is co-ordinated by _~e Caseworker who may access both external and. internal resources including a Social Rehabilitation Counsellor, Placement Advisor, Worksite Analyst, Modified u.,_'" Program Specialist to achieve successful case resolution. , . r '~etermine whether an injured worker is likely to benefit from vocational rehabilitation services by: - · reViewing the file documentation and any previous rehabilitation activitIes · where necessary contacting the worker's accident employer to clarify - his pre-accident Job demands. · interviewing the worker and where required arranging an assessment to clarify the worker's physIcal vocational capabilities. · confirming eligibility for services in accordance with legislation, - policy and guidelines. , , 'Assist workers to achieve employability and return to the workforce by: - · assessing vocational, social, pre-vocational needs at the outset and wnere necessary, refer to the appropriate services. - · collecting vocational and earnings data to determine the earnings prof1~e. · obtaining job descriptions where required -- · acting as a service co-ordinator, utilizing internal/external resources, as appropriate. · participating In, and/or initiating case conferences with the internal vocational rehabIlitation specialists, adjudication and medical - personnel as requi~ed. ; ) ---" - - . I ~' , . : ~ ~ " ' f k . :~ í I'"'" r li' . , . DeYelop a orma zed indi~~dual Vocational Rehabilitation ~~¿n In ..- ¢onjunctlon with'the worker, employer and treating physician with specific ~ objectives and In accordance with approved W.C.B. policies, procedures, guidelines and approved Delegation of Authority levels. - q ~egotiate with the employer and worker, a'return to comparable or suitable I I employment, in accordance with the hierarchy of objectives. I -S. . Ensure the continuation of the Vocational RehabIlItation Plan by: I · intensive monitoring and adjusting time frames and objectives as I - required and documentIng vocational rehabilitation activities. · providing basic social and vocational rehabilitation counselling · providing basic guidance and monitoring of job search activities· - 6. May assist In presenting job readiness programs to injured workers In receipt of vocational rehabilitation services within their local area. 7. Participate in the local employment campaign as required. ( , Advise appropriate WeB staft of additional job opportunities which are not ...,. suitable for their active case load but, may be utilized by other WCB 'rehabIlItation staff. ..... Perform other duties as assigned or required. :COUNTABILITY: .- Reports both orally and in writing, to the Supervisor, Integrated service ""1Jt/Co-ord!nator, Regional Office and receives guidance trom the Program, lor,. Claims and Vocational Rehabilitation. - The incumbent in this positIon Is accountable for expenditures in accordance Lth existing W.C.B. Policies and Procedures and Delegation ot Authority ~ldelines. l1ERAL RELATIONSHIPS; . Develops and maintains communication relationships with management and staff in Client Services and Specialized Vocational Rehabilitation Services - regarding operating policies, plans, procedures and programs. Develops. and maintains communication relationships witÞin the Integrated '- Service Units/Regional Offices having common information needs and procedures. - Develops and maintains communicationrelatlonships outside the organi2atlon with injured employees, accident employers and their representatives, government agencies, professional institutions, industry, medical .'- profession, treatment agencies, community groups, Regional Evaluation Centres and other external agencies. '- j ; , -' - - t ~-~. ftEQU I RDŒN'I'S: '\ \ ", . j . f ~ Post s·econdary education in a rela.ted field of study preferred or the 1 . equivalent of specialized training or experience. ~ z-. emonstrated skills in assessing, interviewing, negotiating and basic vocational rehabUitation counselling.. . ~ Ability to work well with people and have a genuine interest in returning workers to suitable employment. · Ability to communicate well both orally and in writing. c;: Strong organizational and administrative skills. · "0-. Readiness to undertake directed reading and special training in vocational rehabilitation. ~. .~ Willingness to travel occasionally. - Will be required to provide own transportation. · - ...... . Prepared By: V~~tlonal Rehabilitation Strategy - Implementation Committee Date July 18, t 989 - Human Resources SP~c1~1iSþ . .' Signature J-,o./}!..:.:..tl ..!-.,. "...; , .. t. _ Date July 21, 1989 - Rev tewed By: Vocational Rehabilitation Stl'Q;', _. Steering Committee - Date July 2~, 1989 - Approved By: Vocational Rehabilit Signature ~ - Date 5~,P¡: Reviewed By: Senior Staff r.~pensatlon Specialist 0 .- Signa~~- .Date_ I ~7 - - - · ...jJ - - I