Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0975.Tolmie.93-06-14 AWARD The Grievor, Beverley Tolmie, claims that she was improperly denied a vacancy in the position of Customer Services Clerk in the Sudbury Office of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Briefly stated, the principal task of the Customer Services Clerk is to provide information to the public (and others) concerning the policies .and procedures of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan ("OHiP"}. The job is described more fully in' the position specification as follows: 2. Purpose of position '(why does this position exist?) To provide a comprehensive customer service by respond- ing to the needs of various client groups including the Public, Physicians, Employer Group Administrators and Hospital Staff. 3. Duties and related tasks '(what is employee required to do, how and why? fndicate percentage of time spent on each duty) MAJOR RESPONSIbilITIES 75% 1. To provide information and assistance regard- ing OHIP enrolment programs and procedures by responding efficiently to written, oral and '!in-person" inquiries. To provide general information and/or redirect inquiries regard- ing Ministry of Health or other Government Programs, liaising~ with other sections to explain/clarify information or resolve problems such as: Group accounts, pay direct, claims, etc. To assess and approve various applic- ations for coverage, assistance and exemption; coding non-group applications, issuing and controlling OHIP numbers, determining eligibil- ity,. adjusting amounts due and prgcessing refunds. 10% '2. To assist hospital staff in the resolution of admission rejects by determining subscriber eligibility, through communicating with subscriber/hospital concerning eligibility and validity problems. 10% 3. Performs cashiering funct-ions by calculating and accepting premium arrears, maintaining a cash float, balancing payment transactions, preparing bank deposits. 5% 4. To perform other related duties such as participating in Medical Secretary Seminars and Hospital Meetings, ~aintaining production reports, .ensuring physical security of documents, assisting the SuPervisor. with employee training as assigned. 4. Skills and knowledge required to p~rf°rm job at'full working l~vel. (Indicate mandatory' ~credentials or licences, if applicable) The position requires an in-depth knowl'edge of manuals, bulletins and directives to respond to a high volume of inquiries. A good knowledge of computer'terminal use and operation.to retrieve and input data to/from the Subscriber Administration System and interrogation of the Medical Claims'Status Inquiry System. The position 'requires excellent communication skills using tact and' diplomacy, to deal effectively with clients, ability to elicit the necessary information to resolve the problem, impart policy and Procedure. The ability to deal with a high volume of inquiries while maintaining confidentiality. Arithmetic skills are required to apply criteria, calculate premium payments, arrears and refunds. Both written and oral fluency in French. The incumbent utilizes 'judgment in deciding what questions to ask to. identify the problem and course of action to take .to resolve the problem. The incumbent decides how to deal with upset/irate clients'when to refer a. situati~n_to higher authority and when and how' to follow-up on errors and omissions.(i.e., telephone or writing). Whether' information, documentation, aDplic-' ations, etc., are acceptable in order to provide coverage,, assistance or process a hospital account. Comprehensive written guidelines are in place to guide 4 if not identi~al, to the duties of a Customer Services Clerk in a District office. Moreover, as there were reference materials available at Head Office which were not avai%able at the District Offices, a DireCt Subscriber Processing Clerk could be expected to provide information and assistance.to cUStomer Services C~erks in District Offices. A performance appraisal given to the Grievor in this position made reference to. her high level' of productivity and work performance. The Grievor remained at Head office until July, 1984 when her husband, who was in the mil'itary, was transferred to Ottawa. At ~that time~ as there were no permanent positioas availab~e~ she · rssigned from'the Public Service and accepted 'a contract posit~on as a Customer Services Clerk in the'Ottawa District office. No%- withstanding.the resignation~ there was no break 'in service, the Griev0r having left Kingston on a Friday and commenced'working in Ottawa ~he following Monday. Subsequently, as a result of a competition which was held in' November, 1984, the Grievor,_attained a permanent position as Customer Services Clerk in the ottawa Office. There'wereseveral appraisals of the Grievor's performance as a Customer Services clerk, The first, which was a supervisory reference prepared for the purposes of the competit'ion (and, therefore, not a formal .appraisal)~ referred to the Grievor's '"wealth of experience" and "expertise" in the area of customer service. The second, which was 5 also not a formal appraisal, came about as a result of a "complim- entary interview". In this regard, the evidence indicates that some time after her appointment to a permanent position, the Grievor was summoned to a complimentary interview by the Manager of Customer Services, Gail Pitkethly. During the course of interview, the Grievor was commended on her level of productivity and work performance. She was also asked if she would be inter- ested in training new Customer Services Clerks and acting in a supervisory role, should the need arise. Subsequently, the Grievor received hgr first formal appraisal in the Ottawa Office. once again, the Grievor was commended on the quality and quantity of her work as well as on the exercise of judgement and her communication and organizational Skills. The appraisal ~lso made reference to opportunities for acting appointments and training new staff. As it turned out, the Grievor assumed responsibility for training most of the summer students as well as new Customer Services Clerks and 'Control Clerks, being those responsible for controlling the flow of work to the Customer Services Clerks,' in the Ottawa Office. The Grievor received two further formal appraisals during her tenure at the Ottawa Office, which Were similar in nature to those she had received in previous years. The last appraisal, which covered the period from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1988, included a recommendation that the Grievor be appointed as the Customer Services Trainer for the "SAS Online Phase II", a refer- ence to the computerization of the customer services function. Pursuant to this recommendation, the Grievor was selected to train some 20 permanent Customer services Clerks, as-well as a number Of contract Clerks, in'the performance of computer functions~ .There was. also reference in the appraisal to an improvement in the Grievor's attendance over previous.Years when apparently there had been. a problem with respect to absenteeism. 'The Grievo~'s'under- · standing, however, which was corroborated by the Employer's evidence, was that attendance .was not taken into account in assessing the·applicants for the job posting. In late~August, 1988, the Grievor left the Ottawa Office and moved to~Sudbury where ~her husband had obtained a position following his retirement from the military..'Although there were no openings as a~Cu~tome~ Services Clerk, the Grievor attained a position ·as'a Control Clerk in the Sudbuiy Office. She remained in that position for approximately four months when she ~attained the position of Customer Services Clerical Assistant,~.which is the job she held'at the time·of the competition. It was during' her' tenure in the sudbury Office that the Grievor acted in the capacity of Customer Services Clerk for a period in excess of 15 months. Subsequently, in July, 1990, the Grievor requested an 'acting assignment to the Timmins office 'in order to accompany her husband who had accepted a job in the Timmins area. The Employer acceded to her request and the Grievor.commenced a four-month acting assignment as a CustOmer Services Clerk. Once the assign- 7 ment was over, the Grievor returned to the Sudbury Office. How- ever, after a month of commuting between Timmins and Sudbury, she requested a leave of absence. Although her request was granted, two weeks after the commencement of the leave, the Grievor was asked to return to work in the Timmins Office. Apparently, there was a backlog of work in the Sudbury Office and arrangements were made to have the work done in Timmins. Unfortunately., however, these arrangements could not be extended past the end of March. Accordingly, on or about Apri! 2, 1991, the Grievor returned to the Sudbury Office as a Clerical'Assistant. By that time, she had acted in the capacity of Customer Services Clerk for a period of almost two years. It is interesting to note that an appraisal was done on-the Grievor's performance in the Timmins Office for .the period from January 21 to April 2, 1991. That appraisal, which was done after the grievance was filed, rates the Grievor as "good" or "acceptable" in all categories, these being the second and third highest ratings, respectively. It is noteworthy, however, that Yvette Stewart, the Manager who prepared the appraisal, described the Grievor in another context as being, an "exceptional" clerk. According to her resume, Helene Frappier, one of the suc- cessful applicants, commenced employment with the Public Service in March, 1972. From that date until her appointment as a Customer Services Clerk in May, 1991, Ms. Frappier worked as a Claims Clerk in the Sudbury Office of the Ministry of Health, a position requiring her to assess and process claims for payment under OHIP. Moreover, for 'a period of six months in 1987,.she was assigned 'as a developmental opportunity to work as a customer Services Clerk. Her performance appraisal in that position indicates· that she performed'her-work in a satisfaCtory manner, having been rated as "good" or "aCceptable~' in all categories to which these ratings· applied (and "on standard" in those categories to which an "on standard/off standard', rating System applied). Similar'aPpraisals were issued in 1989 and 1990 in respect of Ms. Frappier's perform- ance in h'er permanent position of Claims Clerk. The other successful applicant, Kimberly Babij, commenced emploYment w~th the~Public Service in May, 1980, also as.a 'Claims dlerk ~n the Sudbury Office of the Ministry of Health. 'She remained in this position until she WaS appointed as a Clerical· Assistant, a position .she reta'ined until the outcome of the job competition under review. Ms. Babij's performance assessment for 1988. indicates that .she, too, .was entirely satisfactory, in the performance of her duties and, furthermore, that She processed well in excess of the average number of claims for the relevant period. As previously stated, the job of Customer Services Clerk' was posted on or about May 7, 1991.. There were a number of applic-. ants for the position, seven of whom were granted an, interview. Interviews were conducted by a pane% consisting of'George Naismith, Personnel Officerwith the Ministry of Health in North Bay; Gloria Hughes·, the Supervisor of Data Processing; and Doreen Peters, t~e 9 Manager of Administrative Services, Who acted as Chair of the panel. Mr. Naismith was the only panel member to testify before the Board although a summary of Ms. Peters's evidence was offered to the Board on behalf of herself and Ms. Hughes. Apart from the panel members, Liliane Charbonneau, the Acting Manager of Customer Services, sat in on the interviews. However, she did not particip- ate as a member of the panel as she was a bargaining unit member who was acting in a managerial capacity. Prior to the commencement of'the interviews, supervisory eval'uations were obtained on each of the applicants. The evaluat- ion on the Grievor, which was prepared by Ms. Charbonneau, reads as follbws: Bev has been in customer services on and off and working in Sudbury & in TimminS as anlacting customer services. Very good efficient worker and a definite asset to the area. She gets along with everyone & has good customer services manners. She picks up new changes very quickly. She is presently working as my clerical assistant· She never hesitates to help the clerks regarding problems. By way of contrast, Ms. Babij's evaluation, which was prepared by Doreen Peters, is as follows: Kim has been in a Temporary position as a Clerical Assistant in Administrative Services since January 14, 1991. ll members compared the scores assigned to each applicant. A similar comparison was also undertaken at the end of all of the interviews. According to Mr. Naismith, the purpose of these comparisons was to see if there were any major discrepancies in scores. As it turned out, there were none and, accordingly, no scores were altered as a result of these comparisons having been made. Subsequently, the interview scores (including the marks giwen for the letters which were prepared prior to the interviews) were averaged and the applicants ranked by average score as follows: 1.- Helene Frappier 111.2 2. Kimberly Babij 104.0 3. Beverley Tolmie 104.0 4. J. Gere 97.5 · Prior to the commencement of the interviews, it was decided among the panel members that, because of the long service of all of the applicants, applicants who scored within 20 percent of each other would be considered to be relatively equal. In other words, length of continuous service would be considered only if there was more than a 20 percent variation in scores. . Based on the 20 percent criterion adopted, four out of the seven applicants, namely, Ms. Frappier, Ms. Babij, Ms. Tolmie 12 and Ms. Gere, were considered to be relatively equal.. In the circumstances, therefore, an attempt was made to distinguish among the top four applicants. Accordingl'y, the.supervisory evaluations which were obtained in advance of the interviews were taken~ in~o acCount as well as the personnel files for each of the applicants' for the previous three-year period~ With respect to the super- visory evaluations, Mr. Naismith testified that, although he felt that there was a substantial difference in the. evaluations"given Ms. Babij and the Grieuor ('the Grievor's evaluation describing her as a "very go~d efficient worker and a definite asset to the area" whereas Ms.. Babij's evaluation inclUded the suggestion that she "would be better suited to a situation with close'supervision"), th~ other~panel members were'of a different view. With'respect to the personnel files, the panel members looked for deficiencies (such as reprimands, disciplinary incid- ents, etc.), as well as positive indications (such as~performance appraisals), which might distinguish among the applicants. It would appear, in the'case of theGrievor,'h~wever, that there were no performance appraisals available in sudbury although, there were appraisals ~in ~the PersOnnel Office in North Bay. Accordingly, 'subsequent to his return to North Bay,'Mr. Naismith reviewed these appraisals and'satisfied the other members of the panel as to their adequacy. (Specifically, the evidence ~ndicates that he told them the appraisals were "OK".) It should be noted that neither the supervisory evaluat- ions nor the personnel files were point rated. Furthermore, as the personnel files revealed considerable absenteeism among all of the applicants (the Grievor and Ms. Babij, in particular), the evidence suggests that absenteeism was not takenlinto account in the panel's deliberations. Finally, the evidence indicates %hat consideration was given to the fact that two of the applicants, namely, the Grievor and Ms. Gere, had acted· in the position of customer Services Clerk and that another, namely, Ms. Frappier, had been assigned to the position, for six months as a developmental opportunity. However, because the review of personnel files was limited to the three-year period pr~ior to the posting, the Grievof's experience as a Customer Services Clerk in the Ottawa Office and in the analogous position, namely, Direct Subscriber Processing Clerk at Head Office, was not taken into account. Taking into account the factors referred to above, the decision was made to award the job on the basis of length of continuous service. On this basis, the 'job was awarded to the senior applicant, Ms. Frappier (who also. had the highest interview score) and the next most senior applicant, Ms. BabiJ. In respect of the ~ppointment of Ms. Babij, Mr. Naismith was concerned that a grievance might arise if the Grievor, who was junior to' the successful applicants and was tied with Ms. Babij at the end of the interviews, were to be awarded the job. Accordingly, he asked the other two panel members whether they felt Ms. Babij could do the job (a question Mr. Naismith Claimed that he always asks on job· competitions and that he also asked in respect of Ms. ~Frappier,s appointment). Although· she did not participate in the interview process, the same question Was put to Ms. charbonneau. Once assured that she could do the job, Mr. Naismith re6ommended that Ms. Babij be awarded the Job. This recommendation was accepted by the other panel members. . The Grievor maintained that the interview questions did not adequately test the qualifications and ability required t° do the ~job of Customer Services Clerk. She complained that, with the exception of~ Question 8, '·the questions were too basic, in some cases, requiring a "yes" or "no" answer, so that an applieant had a 50 percent chance·of answering correctly without knowing anything about the customer services area. The Grievor~ therefore, felt that she would enhance her answers by adding an explanation. It would appear, however, for the most part, that these explanations were not recorded. ~Apart from questions requiring a "yes" or ·"no" answer,. the Grievor claimed that the panel memberS·were not sufficiently familiar with the customer services area to evaluate the answers given by the job applicants, particularly those'answers which did not directly correspond to the model' answers and, therefore-, that the panel members underrated some of her answers while overrating 16 · G~re, who performed competently as an acting .Customer Services Clerk, did no~ score higher on the interview, he did n~t view this as an indication'that the questions were ill conceived. In view of the allegations with respect to the questions. asked at the interviews~as well as the propriety 'of the marking scheme,· the Board proposes to review the questions and answers in some detail. The first question in respect of which an issue was raised was actually the second question of the interview. 'The question and model answer are as follows: It 'is' the~responsibility o~ every Ministry of Health employee to maintain confidentiality of information that they may obtain during their employment. What·inform- ation is confidential? ANSWER: a) Medical b) Diagnosis c) Enrolment (5 points each)· Although the Grievor was 'givenS5 points for mentioning health number, birthdate and personal infor.~ation, which were considered to be .enrolment information, she was given no credit for mention- ing · claims information, which she Considered to be both medical and diagnostic. Furthermore, the Grievor was given no credit for answering-"everything"'because, although she was correct in assert- ing that everything is confidential, a more detailed answer was expected. In any event, the Grievor felt that the question was improperly formulated and scored as medical and diagnostic are one in the same, which should have been apparent to the panel members. The next question to which the Grievor objected was Question 3, which reads as follows: A customer Services clerk must approve, assess and code M.O.H. forms. Why must the data on an application form be coded? ANSWER: To p~epare the data'in the format required for entry and transmission to the Central Proces- Although the Grievor admitted that she misinterpreted the question (and, therefore, answered incorrectly), she claimed that the Employer erred in crediting Ms. Babij with 8 marks out of 10 for her reference to "key punch". According to the Grievor, there'is a distinction at least in the Sudbury Office between key punch and data entry, which the panel failed to recognize. As to Questions 4 and 6, which:called for a "yes" or "no" answer, although the Grievor was accorded full marks, she main- tained they were unfairly constructed as someone with no knowledge of the area had a 50 percent chance of answering correctly. Mo~e- over, although the Grievor provided reasons for her answers to these questions, it would appear that the reasons were not recorded. With respect to Question 7, ~heGrievor claimed that the marking was in effect arbitrary. The question and. answer read as follows: One'of the~Customer Services tasks will be to access the Registered Person'Data Base. By what means does the clerk access the R.P.D.B.? ANSWER: A terminal is used to recall data 'from'the C.P.U. to the display screen. Although the Grtevor was given 8 marks, out of 10 from one panel. member and 5.marks from the other two 'for an answer which made reference to signing on to the terminal; entering a code in order to gai~ access to the main menu; making the appropriate selection from the main menu and a further selection depending on the function required, Ms.-Frappier~ the top-rated apPlicant', was given full marks from One panel' member, 5.from another and 8 from another .for merely mentioning the word "terminal". Furthermore, although~ the Grievordid not take.exception to her score, Ms. Babij received 9 marks from one panel member and'8 from. two others for referring 'to going into the prOgramme,-using the password and station number. Although the Grievor received full (i.e., 25 out of 25) marks for Question 8, she asked questions of the p~nel 'members which she felt.demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the subject- 19 matter. In order to understand her conclusion, it is necessary to consider botl~ the question and answer, which read'as follows: A client is upset because he or she applied twice for their health card and they have not received it. Four months haYe gone by since the last time he/she applied. Client is very upset and as a result is very loud, rude, and obnoxious to you. What would be your course of action? ANSWER: (5 points each) a) Be a good listener. b) Try to remain calm and in control of the situation. c) Speak quietly and try to perceive the feeling of the other person. d) Once he/she settles ~own, assure him/her that you will certainly look~into this matter and get back to him/her. e) If I cannot find anything on our records, I would have client complete another form and suggest it be forwarded to my attention for immediate processing. When the question was put to the Griev°r, she asked w~ether the fact situation related to a walk-in or a telephone inquiry. According to the Grievor, there i's a difference as to how one handles an irate client on the telephone and in person. The panel, however, did not appear to appreciate ~he difference, indicating that the Grievor was the only applicant'to h~ue raised the' issue. In any event, after some hesitation, they .indicated it was a Walk- in. According to the Grievor, however, the model answer (paragraph (e), in particular) relates to a telephone inquiry, rather than a walk-in. 21 She responded correctly, however, that' correspondence would come last. The Grievor and Ms. Babij b~th received full marks for their answers to Question 11, which dealt with the Northern Health Travel Grant. Ms. Frappier's marks were only slightly lower (two 10's and an 8) although both Ms. Babij and Ms. Frappier erroneously indicated that northern residents were required to travel to south- ern Ontario in order to be eligible for the grant, which is not reflected in the model answer. Apart from the interview questions, the applicants were scored 6n the.letters they composed in advance of the interviews. The letters, which were composed in response to a hypothetical request for information from an Alberta resident moving to'Ontario, were scored out of 5. The Grievor received 3 marks, which was the same as Ms. Babij, whereas Ms. Frappier received 4.5 marks. Evid- ently, the Grievor lost 1/2 mark each for the absence of a salut- ation and reference line and 1 mark for grammar. The evidence indicates, however, that neither the Grievor nor the two successful applicants included a reference line (the Grievor considering it superfluous as there was no health numberprovided and as there had been no previous correspondence with the Alberta resident). As for the salutation, the Grievor testified that she was instructed to prepare the letter as if it were being handed to a Clerical Assist- ant for typing, which would mean that there would be no need to include a salutation. As for the so-called grammatical error, at no time was there ever any.indication of what the error was. Apart from the form of the letter, no account was taken of the SUbstantive content. 'The Grievor claimed, however, that the letters prepared by both Ms. Frappier and Ms. Babij contained substantive errors. 'For instance, although the hypothetical request was, being made on-behalf of. a family and although a separate application is required for' each family member; Ms. Frappier proposed to forward only .one application for Ontario health coverage. Ms. Babij, on the other hand, purported to advise the Alberta resident that in order to apply for an Ontario-health Card-, ~n OHIP number is'required, which the Grievor maintained is incorrect. Ms. Babij also indicated that Alberta health coverage would continue for the first three months following departurefrom the. province., which is technically incorrect (as coverage apparent- ly continues until the first day of the third month following departure) and could, therefore, cause.confusion. According to the Grtevor, it is'in or'der to avoid this,kind of confusion that such information ought not to be given in responding to an out-of- province inquiry.. -.Instead, a guide book covering Such matters should be sent (which Ms. Babij also proposed to send). Moreover, Ms. Babtj purported to give a time frame in which' the new health cards would b9 received, which the Grievor claimed was unrealistic in view of th~ mass registration being undertaken at the time. The Grievor also claimed that Msl Babij's letter was unduly long (which 23 at least one panel member appeared to recognize although it seems that no points were deducted) and unprofessional, making reference, as it does, to "our great province of' Ontario". Sometime after the. interviews were conclude~, the Grievor was advised of the results. The Grievor claimed that because of her extensive experience performing essentially th~ same functions in the Ottawa and Kingston Offices, she was often called upon to provide assistance to her co-workers in Sudburyl Indeed, subseq- uent to the selection of the successful applicants, the Grievor continued to provide assistance to the 'Customer Services Clerks, including Ms. Babij. The evidence further indicates Ghat in July, 1991, some two months after the competition, the Grievor was again' appointed as acting Customer Services Clerk in the Sudbury Office. Finally, in August, 1991, she was appointed as Acting Customer Services Manager for a'one-week period, which in effect placed her in the position of supervising the two successful applicants, Ms. Frappier and Ms. Babij. The Union subm%tted that the Employer violated the collective agreement in failing to award the position of Customer Services Clerk to the Grievor whose qualifications and ability were demonstrably superior to those of the successful applicants. The Union further submitted that the selection process w~s fundament- ally-flawed as the Employer relied excessively on the interview scores to the detriment of other factors,~ most prominently, actual e×perlence in the job in question and performance appraisals (which were not considered.in any meaningful sense) and that, t~ the extent that other factors were relied upon, it was only to corroborate· the results of the interview process. The Union further submitted that.the Employer applied the wrong test,· having sought to verify the successful applicants' 'qualifications and ability to do the~job (rather than their relative qualifications and ability, as the collective agreement requires). As for the interview questions, 'the'Union'submitted that they did not adequately reflect the requirements of the~ job as (1) the questions Were, in essence, superficial and the answers incom- plete; and (2) the'panel members·did not have sufficient~knowledge of the subject-matter to recognize correct answers Which did·not directly correspond to the model answers. By way of relief, the Union requested that the Grievor be appointed t© the job of Customer ServiCes Clerk with pay and benefits retroactive to the date the vacancies were filled by the successful applicants, in the alternative, the Union requested that the competition be rerun subject to the imposition· of strict conditions. The Employer submitted that the onus is on the.Union to establish that the Grievor was demonstrably superior in qualific- ations and ability to the successful applicants. The Employer further submitted that in this case the onus has'not been met as (i) the results of the interviews indicated that the four top-rated 25 applicants were relatively equal; and (2) the other factors which were taken into account verified these results. As to the first point, the Employer submitted that the interview questions were a valid measure of qualifications and ability required to perform the Job of Customer Services Clerk. AS to the suggestion that the questions were superficial, the Employer submitted that the questions were formulated by Ms. Campbell and Ms. Charbonneau, both of whom were knowledgeable in the customer services area. Further- more, as to the suggestion that the panel members had insufficient knowiedge of the area to recognize correct answers which did not conform to the model answers, the Union submitted that two o~ the panel members, namely, Ms. Peters and Ms. Hughes, had considerable experi6nce in OHIP and, in any event, had prepared themselves for the competition by consulting with Ms. Charbonneau-and Ms. Campbell. The Employer further submitted that the third member, Mr. Na~smith (who participated in the panel to ensure the fairness of the selection process but did not represent himself as being knowledgeable in the customer services area), had limited involve- ment in the interviews (although he, too., prepared for the compet- ition). In any event, the Employer submitted that even if the panel members were lacking in .knowledge of the customer services area, Ms. Charbonneau was available tol provide input respecting these matters. As to the other factors which were taken into account, . the Employer maintained that excessive reliance on experience in 26 the job of Customer Services Clerk would have been inconsistent .with the requirements of the position specificatlon and would also have discriminated against those applicants without such. exper- 'ience. In any event, the Employer claimed that such experience was taken into account, in the selection process, both in the' interview questions (particularly .Questions.6 ~and 8, where the Grievor's experience as a Customer Services Clerk contributed to the attain- ment of full marks) and the letters which were prepared in-advance of the interviews as. well as other aspects of'the selection process, such as personnel files and'supervisory~appraisals, both~ or.which would have been weighted more heavily'had there been any indication of experience'in the job in question. The. Employer furthe~ submitted that it its limite~'.consideration of'personnel files to the three-year period prior to the. posting'to avoid taking into account irrelevant factors. In sum, the Employer.submitted that there was nothing in the other factors.'which Were taken into account to detract from.the conclusion that the 'four top-rated applicants' were relatively equal and, accordingly, the vacancies were filled on.the basis of'length of'service. The issue in this .case is whether the. Employer violated the collective agreement in failing to award a vacancy in the pos- ition of Customer Services Clerk to the Grievor, Beverley Tolmie. 27 In order to decide this issue, it is necessary to consider Article 4.3 of the collective agreement, which reads as follows: In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration tolqualifications and ability t9 perform the required duties. Where qualific- ations and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall be a consideration. Article 4.3, which has been characterized as a competit- ive clause, requires a comparison of qualifications andL ability among the applicants for a job posting. In this case, as the Grievor was junior to the successful applicants, in order to- establish its claim under Article 4.3, the Union must demonstrate that she was demonstrably.superior in qualifications and ability to one or the other of the successful applicants: see Eem~k 149/77 (Swinton). ~ The Board has dealt with Articl.e 4.3 on numerous occas- ions. Perhaps the seminal case is thatof Ouinn 9/78 (Prichard), wherein the Employer's obligations on a job competition are summar- ized as follows: ...the employer must employ a process of decision-making designed to consider the relative qualifications and ability of the candidate in a competition which will ensure that sufficient relevant information is adduced before the decision-makers in order'that they may make their comparisons in the confidence that they are able to thoroughly andproperly compare the qualifications and abilities of the competing applicants. 28. In order to fulfill these obligations, the employer must design and utilize a selection process in job competit- ions that is' consistent with the purposes of the selection process. .Thus, under this collective~agree- ment, the process must be designed to elicit in a system- atic manner sufficiently comprehensive information about each applicant relevant to the qualifications and ability required to perform the job in order that a fair and reasonable assessment of the relative strengths of the candidates can be undertaken and the final selection made. APartjfro~ this general ~statement, the Board has also developed specific 'criteria by which to evaluate a selection process. These are set out in Christmas a~d Chaput '907/86', 908/86 (Gandz) as follows: 1. Candidates must be evaluated on all the relevant qualifications for the job as set out in the Position specification. 2. The various methods used to assess .the candidates · should address these relevant qualifications inso- far as is Possible. ~For example, interview questions.and evaluation forms should cover all the qualifications. · 3. Irrelevant factors should not be considered. 4. All the members of a selection 'committee should review the personnel files of alI the applicants. 5. The applicants' .superVisors should be asked-for their evaluations of the applicants. 6. Information should be accumulated in a systematic way concerning all the applicants. the Grievor was denied marks to which she was entitled, particular- ly in.regard to Question 2,~Pwhere separate marks'were'assig~ed to medical and diagnostic information. Leaving aside the distinction, if any, between these two categories, the evidence indicates that the GrieVor was denied credit for mentioning cla'ims information which would appear to be covered by both. Moreover, in respect to the letter which was submitted in advance of the interviews, marks were deducted for'a grammatical error'which was'never established 'and for the absence of a salutation although the instructions would suggest that none was required.-'More important to'our determin- ation, however, is the fact that other applicants were credited with excessive marks having regard to the answers given: see, in this respect, the marks assigned to Ms. Babij: for Questions 3, 10 and lI, as well as the letter, and to Ms.. Frappier for Questions 7, 10 and 11. But apart from the interviews, there were other factors which the interview panel failed to take into account in any meaningful sense (the evidence being that they were only taken into consideration, to verify 'the results. 0f ~the interviews).~ For instance, although performance appraisals were taken into account, in the case of the Grievor, 'these were unavailable to. the entire panel. Moreover, consideration of.performance appraisals for all of the applicants was'limited to the three-year period prior to the posting.. Although there may be circumstanCes.in which some limit- ation is appropriate, there was no indication as to the basis upon 31 which.the limitation was imPOsed in this case although it had the effect of excluding consideration of the Grievor's experience at Head Office and in Ottawa. It was that~experience, however, which uniquely qualified her for the job in-question. Nevertheless, the Employer maintained that it would have been discriminatory to have taken into account prior ~xperience in the job in question or, alternatively, that this factor was taken into account in the interview questions, we cannot agree. While on-the-job experience may have assisted in answering some of the questions, the cases suggest that this factor should be dealt with directly, as actual experience is a reliable indicator of qualific- ations End ability to perform the job in question: see ~all/~owers 716/89, B66/89 (Gorsky); Nixo~ 2418/87 (Fisher). In our view, had sufficien't weight been given to the Grievor's experience as a Customer ServiCes Clerk, particularly in the Ottawa Office and in the analogous position in Head Office, and to performance appraisals prepared by various Supervisors over the course of her employment (and not just for a period of three years prior to the posting which, in any event, were available to only one panel member) as well as a supervisory evaluation prepared for the purposes of the competition, the inescapable conclusion would have been .that the Grievor was demonstrably superior at least to the second place applicant, Ms. Babij. Moreover., as a practical matter, the Employer limited its inquiry to' whether Ms. Babij (and' indeed Ms..uFrappier) was 'qualified for the position, which is not the'test under this collective agreement. .In fact, there was never any suggestion tha~ Ms. Babij- .was not at'all qualified for the position. However,. given that she had no prior experience as a cUstomer Services Clerk and that a supervisory evaluation.prepared for the purpose of the competition suggested that she might be better' suited to an area with greater supervision, we cannot ~onclude that there was relatiVe equali%y between the Grievor and Ms. 'B~bij. Accordingly, for the reasons s~et out above, we find that the Grievor was demonstrably s.uPerior.to.Ms. Babij and, therefore, ought to be awarded the job. The Board, %herefore, directs that the Grievor be appointed to the position of Customer Services Clerk forthwith and compensated'for all losses incurred as a result of having been denied the posted position. The Board witl remain 33 seised for the purposes of implementation of this award. DATED AT TORONTO, thisl4th day of June,. 1993. M. Saltman,. Vice-Chairman E. Seymour, Member F. Reeve, Member