HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0813.West.90-11-22
,- ( '.
ONTARIO " '.., EMPLOYÉS DE LA cOURONNE
.. CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
, ,
~. 11.11" GRIEVANCE CpMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT .
BOARD.. DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET. WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8.. SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/iÉLlPHONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G lZe -BUREAU 2100 (416) 598-0688
813/90
IN THB HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THB CROWN EMPLOYBES COLLECT:IVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD,
BETWEEN
OPSEU (West)'
Grievor
~ and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: ' P. Knopf Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym Member,
M. O'Toole Member
FOR THE , L. Newton
GRIEVOR Counsel
Cornish Roland
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THB E. McKnight
EMPLOYER Staff Relations Advisor
Human Resources Branch
Ministry of Transportation
HEARING: October 24, 1990
i J
\ I
~
DECISION
This case involves a grievance over a job
competition. At the outset of the proceedings, the Ministry
,raised a preliminary issue. It was admitted on behalf of the
Ministry that the job competition had been conducted in a
manner that would be considered defective by this Board. The
Ministry realizod this soon after the grievance_had been
filed and had offered a rerun of the competition. The
Grievor declined that opportunity and proceeded to process
the grievance through to the hearing. The Ministry argued
that, given its admission and willingness to conduct a new
, competition, the Board should decline to hear the case and
should simply order that ,the competition be rerun.
The Union disagrecdõ It was pointed out that only
three people applied for the position in question. Those
three were the Grievor, the Incumbent and a third individual
who was willing to tes~ify on behalf of the Grievor. Counscl
for the Union stressed that since the Board has the
jurisdiction ,to award the position to a grievor in the event
that the selection process violates the collective agrQeme~t,
we ought to accept our jurisdiction to do so. We were told
that the Union could prescnt evidence to show that the
Grievor was the rno~t sonior candidate and the most qualified
for the position and ought therefore to be placed directly
into the position.
We also heard from the Incumbent, Mr. Bruce Fry, who
appeared on his own behalf. He felt that he had'been fairly
and properly accepted into the position. nc'stressed that he
has performod the duties of the job without complaint and
hopes to retain the position.
· \
I ; - 2 -
I
"
Upon reflection, the Board ruled that in the unusual
circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to hear
evidence and argument on the appropriate remedy in this
situation. While the Grievance Settlement Board ought not to
place itself in the position of management and sit in
judgment on the relative qualifications of applicants for a
job posting, the situation before us was unique. There, were
only three applicants for the job and they were involved in
the hearing, we could conduct the inquiry and render a
decision in loss time than would be involved if 'the
competition was rerun and there was some apprehension on the
Union's part as to the ability of management to conduct an
impartial revi~w of the candidates, given the circumstances
leading µp to the grievance. Accordingly, we invited both
parties and the Incumbent to present evidence to us on the
sole issue of the relative seniority and qualifications of
the Grievor and the Incumbent as well as evidence regarding
the job in question. This.would enable us to determine an
appropriate remedy, that could include the possibilit~ of
returning the question to the Employer to rerun' the
competition in any event.
The position being sought is that of a Highway
General Foreman 1. The class covers positions of employees
who supervise the activities of sub-foroman, equipment
operators and manual workers, who are engaged in, road repairs
and the maintenance of bridges, fences, culverts and other
construction and maintenance projects within the applicable
area. Basically, they would supervise the Operator 3ts who
arc Highway Equipment Operators. These people operate a
variety of equipment. They transport personnel, ~ut grass,
maintain the road shoulders~ do snow removal, and maintain
equipment.
J - 3 -
i
. ,,'
I
"
Both the Grievor and the Incumbent wer~ Operator 3'5
at the time of the posting. The Grievor had 23 yoars'
seniority and the Incumbent had less than one year's
seniority. So the Incumbent was not yet a permanent
employee.
There is no question that both the Grievor and the
Incumbent were qualified to do the job. However, it is this
Board's task to weigh their relative qualifications. The
evidence before us shows that .the Grievor has worked wi thin
this operation for a number of years. He has taken a variety
of courses dealing with the maintenance and 0p9ration of all
the applicable equipment, as well as occupational health and I
1
safety and safe driving courses and WHMIS. For nine years he
has acted in a supervisory role over assigned staff and
equipment while the Patrolman was on holidays, or at other
assigned times whe~ necessary. On such occasions he has kept
records, diaries, time sheets and the appropriate equipment
log. He has also acted as the union Representa ti ve 'and the
Safety Representative within his unit. He is învolved' in the
community as a minor softball coach.
The Grievor's performance appraisals for a number of
years were filed. These appraisals show a consistently
satisfactory work performance. In 1988 his supcrv~sor
summarized the appraisal by saying:
aill is very competent· at equipment operations and
equipment maintenance. Bill is very competent at
highway and facility ,maintenance. He is very good
at solving difficult problems that arise from time
to time. Bill is very safety conscious. Bill
takes over for s~pcrvisor·when needed and is very
competent in this area. Bill could go on to the
next level of his career in highway maintenance.
We were also given evidence regarding the Incumbent.
Prior to joining the Ministry, Mr. Fry worked for the County
I
I
- - 4 -
I
~
"
I
of Hastings from 1986 to 1989 in the Roads Departmennt. In
this capacity he earned'ð Class A-Z Driver's Licence and took
a variety of courses dealing with Air Brakes and WHMIS. He
also got a wide breadth of experience working on a number of ,
pieces of equipment dealing with'road maintenance. He joined
the Ministry in 1989 and gained certification on Type A and
Type B equipment. He also took a number of other courses.
Like the Grievor, Mr. Fry is active in the community, playing
Junior B and Major Junior A hockey as well as assistant
coaching a Peewee "en team to the Ontario Championship.
l1r. Fry's "three-month" and nnine-month" work appraisals were
filed. They are very positive. They indicate that Mr. Fry
met the performance ,job expectations and was recommended to
become a regular employee.
Article 4.3 of the collective agreement provides:
In filling a vacancy, the Employer should give
I primary consideration to qualifications and ability
to perform the required duties. Where
qualifications and ability are relatively equal,.
length of continuous servico shall be a
consideration.
The Employer admits that the process it used to
evaluate the qualifications and the ability of the people who
applied for this job was,procedurally flawed. While the
Employer would' have preferred to have this Board remit this
matter back to management to determine the rclativ~
qualifications anew, the Ministry did not challenge the fact
that this Board has the authority and jurisdiction to make
such determination. Hence, on the evidence before us, we are
called upon to consider the qualifications and ability of , the
Gricvorand the Incumbent.
Wo had the advantage' of hearing evidence from the
Incumbent, Mr. ~ry , as well as reviewing his applicatio~ and
his job performance appraisals. There is no doubt that he is
I
, ~
"
I - 5 -
.
I
a very impressive young man. He is articulate, though tfu 1,
and very anxious to do a good job in this Department. As he
said t;,o us, "I've done more than was expected of me. r look
forward to doing extra. n He impressos us as someone who I
would be a very valuable employee and an asset to any
department. We are confidónt that the Ministry recognizes
this and will take the appropriate steps necessary to
encourage Mr. Fry to pursue a long career with the Ministry.
However, 'we must weigh the relative qualifications
and ability to perform the required duties of this position
between Mr. Fry and Hr. West. Despite Mr. Fry's potential
and good performance at the time of the competition, Mr. West
has been able to demonstrate a long history of success and
ability at all the relevant job, skills. He has long years of
experience lnall the pieces of equipment applicable to the
job. For a number of years he has worked in an acting
supervisory capacity on several occasions without evidence of
. < ,
any complaints. He has undertaken many of the supervisory
functions·such as record-keeping and problem-solving amongst
his staff. The job appraisal indicates that he is ready for
a promotion within his field. At the very least" he has to
be considered relatively equal to the Incumbent, in which
case, his len~th of continuous service of 23 years over the
Incumbent's probationary status has to govern. But also"
viewed objectively, it is very difficult to see how tho
Grievor's qualifications and ability to perform the required
duties could not be considered higher than those of tho
Incumbent at this stage in their careers. Thus, on either
basis, it is appropriate to order that the Grievor ought to
have been given the position.
Thus we conclude that the, Grievor ought to be
promoted to the position of Patrol Foreman/Woman. He is to
be compensated for any income he may have lost from the date
that the Incumbent was placed in the job .' He rc ta i n
'. "
. ~ '.
- 6 -
,,'
jurisdiction to deal with any matter of implementation should
our assistance be required further.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 22nd day of November
1990.
/'
I~
Paula Knopf - Vice-Chairperson
¡ic,·~.~ ;
P. Klym - Membor
l
117 ,_;J (' 4ð!~
M. O'Toole - Member
i
, :1
\1
I
,