Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0213.Magliocco.94-07-07 _. ,~~~ -~'- _ ",--- ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ON TA RIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE , SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT ;BOARD DES GRIEFS I 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARIO, M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326- 388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE /TELECOPIE (4161 326-1396 213/93 IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Magliocco) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of correctional Services) Employer BEFORE H. Finley Vice-Chairperson E. Seymour Member A. Merritt Member FOR THE S Lopez GRIEVOR Counsel Cornish Advocates Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE M. . Mously EMPLOYER Grievance Administration Officer Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING April 20, 1994 May 3, 1994 ---- ~~ .'ll - I D E C I S ION ! In this grievance, the Grievor, Ms Shelli Magliocco, alleges that the employer has violated the Collective Agreement by failing to award [her] the position described in competition No CI-1037-92 as of January 4, 1993 At the time of the filing of the grievance and of the hearing Ms Magliocco was a Correctional Officer 2 at the Waterloo Detention Centre There were three other individuals who, as incumbents at the Mimico Correctional Centre, had an interest in the outcome of this matter Ronald Lindsay, Sigrid Ferreira and Mike Ehl All were informed of the hearing time and location, and of their entitlement to attend, by letter dated March 30, 1994, from Counsel for the Grievor, Ms Suzanne Lopez None attended in person, nor was anyone of them represented The issue here involves two separately numbered job competitions which were held at the Mimico Correctional Centre , I /Complex with a single interviewing and written testing process Three of the candidates who participated in this job competition process testified at the hearing Ms. Magliocco, the Grievor, and, Ed Bruce a'nd James Slack, both Correctional Officers at Mimico Correctional Centre The individual responsible for holding these competitions was Mr Bruce Thompson, Senior Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Corrections At the time of the competitions he was Acting Deputy Superintendent He arranges job competitions in consultation with the Personnel Administration Consultant at the Regional Office and is responsible for reporting the results to the Superintendent who then offers the positions to the successful candidates Mr Thompson, testified that in August/September, 1992, the Employer had two distinct groups of positions to fill, the first, was for 3 existing vacancies of General Duty Officer at the ----- ~..--._~$< .....~ Correctional Officer 2 classification at the Mimico Correctional Centre (CI-1030-92)i the second, was for 24 new General Duty Officer positions at the Correctional Officer 2 classification at I the Mimico Correctional Complex Detention Centre (CI-1037-92), I which were to be filled on a staggered basis related to the I opening date of the Detention Centre The Employer had been instructed to arrange for staffing in advance and was given permission to hire 24 staff These instructions were carried out .in the belief that the funding was in place Mr Thompson expected to receive the promised funding for the operation of the Detention Centre when all structural deficiencies were remedied and the building was accepted by the Ministry of Correctional Services from the Ministry of Government Services Competition CI-l030-92 ( 3 positions), (Appendix A) was posted on August 19, 1992, competition CI-1037-92 (24 positions), on Aug.ust 31, 1992 (Appendix B) Ms Magliocco applied for competition CI-1037-92 (24) She did not submit an application for CI-I030-92 ( 3 ) Both competitions were restricted to classified and unclassified staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services, CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) , to staff "whose principal residence is within 40 kms of, or who already work at the Mimico Correctional Centre" and CI-I037-92 ( 24) to staff "permanently residing within 40 kms of, or currently working at, the MimicQ Correctional Complex " Candidates for each competition were pre-screened based on their meeting the area of search requirements set out in the job postings The Employer acknowledges that Ms Magliocco would have met the area of search requirements set out in both postings There were 26 applicants for competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 )', and 94, for competition CI-1037-92 ( 24) All the applicants who applied for CI-I030-92 ( 3 ) , applied for CI-I037-92 (24), but not 2 \Ss-' ~ -~ all of those who applied for CI-l037-92 (24), applied for CI- 1030-92 ( 3 ) The decision to hold a single interviewing process and to send a single letter (October 29, 1992), infra, with respect to interview notification to the 94 candidates involved in this process, was made to streamline the interviewing and examination processes of the competitions This procedure was made possible, in part, according to Mr Thompson, because all who applied for CI-I030-92 ( 3 ) , also applied for CI-1037-92 (24) Mr Thompson testified that it was never the intention of the Employer to meld the two competitions into one so that if an individual had applied for one competition he/she would automatically be deemed to have applied for the other Two lists of candidates in the competitions were filed as exhibits The first, listed participants in competitions CI-I030- 92 ( 3 ) and CI-l037-92 (24) and showed a separate column for each in which an "X" was entered if the candidate was participating in the competition indicated at the top of the column The second, was a list of all the candidates participating in competition cr.- 1037-92 (24 ) Mr Thompson testified that he was not able to locate a similar list for competition CI..,.1030-92 ( 3 ) and acknowledged that he may not have prepared one The interview process was carried out over a two-day period by three panels with two interviewers per panel, each asking the same set of questions Mr Thompson was one of the interviewers. According to him each panel used the same format and before the interview began, one of the members explained to the candidate that there was one process for two competitions and gave the reason for this He testified that throughout the process, he and other interviewers advised applicants, with respect to competition CI-I037-92 (24), that "the job was contingent on fuhding and building completion" Ms Magliocco, who was interviewed by Mr Thompson and Tom Montgomery, testified that at the time of the interview, (November 6, 1992), she was looking to 3 I I %- oft' ^ . a "mid-November opening" She stated that Mr Thompson told her that there were 24 + 3 positions available and that she interpreted this to mean that there were three more job opportunities available to her She was unable to recall exactly what Mr Thompson said with respect to th~ combining of the two competitions She does not recall any questions or comments with respect to funding Mr. Bruce was also interviewed by the Thompson/Montgomery interview team He testified that "They related to me they would run one set of interviews for the competition (sic] " He interpreted this to mean "that they were lumping two competitions into one" He also acknowledged during cross-examination that he understood that competition CI-I030-92 ( 3 ) related to the Correctional Centre and that CI-I037-92 (24 ) related to the Detention Centre Further, "at the time of the interview (he] understood it (a position related to the Detention Centre] was conditional " Mr. Slack was interviewed by Dan Collins (Acting Senior Assistant Superintendent) and Jim Morrison (Regional Personnel Manager) According to Mr Slack the interview began with an explanation of the "recruiting process" According to him, there was no mention of funding Mr Slack acknowledged, in cross-examination , that Mr Morrison had said that the interview process was for two competitions He could not recall if it was said that the two competitions had been made into one Mr Slack stated that his perception was that the interview process was "for both applications", that there was one round of wr i tten tests and interviews to hire for .two postings, based on (his] resumes [he] had put in " He maintained that it was "posted as two competitions but became one" The Employer acknowledges that Ms Mag~iocco ranked first in the CI-1037-92 (24) competition and that had she submitted an application for the CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) competition, she would have been offered one of the positions in that competition based on the competition results As it was, the three positions were awarded to Mike Ehl, Sigrid Ferreira and Ronald Lindsay, the 4 ~ ~ . present incumbents Competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) vacancies were filled shortly after the interviews Competition CI-l037-92 (24) results were announced to the candidat~s by a letter dated December IS, 199~, infra However, no one Jas appo inted to any of these pos it ions due to the uncompleted stalte of the building and lack of funding Finally, the competition ~as cancelled in June, 1993, following the wi thdrawa1 of the pkomise of funding, and the successful I candidates were notified by letter dated June lO, 1993, infra Mr Thompson also eXPlaihed in his testimony that at the time this competition was held knd when the successful candidates were informed of their succe~s, he was not aware of the funding problems, and was only ilnformed of this during May/June 1993 During the months fOlloJing the completion of competition CI- 1037-92 (24), expenditure reduction plans were announced by the Ministry, staffing came ui.der scrutiny, and the institution was informed that funding was ho longer available A competition for thirteen positions was hel~ sometime later (#1048) and successful candidates were appointed to the thirteen positions Although Ms Magliocco was invited in the letter of June 10, 1993 to apply for this later competitioni she chose not to do so The Grievor testified that she relocated to Toronto in August, 1992 because career opportunities are much more available in Toronto than inCambr idge and it was my ideal goal at that time Her move was not related t) the job posting for 3 vacancies, and she was not aware of it at the time of her move Ms Magliocco It. explained that she commuted to her work at the Waterloo Deten 10n I Centre from the time of her move in August, 1992, until she I moved back to her home in Cambridge in June 1993, and rented her 5 ~ tk1 home in Cambridge Ms Magliocco testified as to her impressions of the job competition process and stated that she had heard from Mimico Correctional Centre employees that "they were amalgamating two competitions in one interview process" In December 1992, she thought that there were 27 positions - "one set of interviews for two postings, the.refore you add them together" The amalgamation of competitions has, according to her, been done before As we 11 , she stated that she heard from staff that the ranking was 1 to 27 She also testified to the fact that she had received unofficial congratulations from the Superintendent at the Waterloo Detention Centre in January, 1993 She spoke of the weeks of frustration which she experienced, wondering where she would be working. She was under the impression that the Detention Centre opening would take place in mid-November, 1992, the time which was give in the Opportunity Bulletin in August/September, 1992 She acknowledged in cross examination that she was aware of the staggered start dates, as she had read about this in the posting Ms Magliocco maintains that she did not understand from the December 15, 1992 letter, infra, that the appointment to positio.ns was conditional on funding being received She filed her grievance on February 11, 1993 It is the Union's position that these competitions were, in effect, one single competition rather than two separ~te and distinct competitions, and that, in accordance with Article 4 3 1 of the Collective Agreement the Grievor should have been awarded one of the three vacant positions as she would have been selected if she had been put up against the three successful candidates She is not, at this point seeking to be placed in one of these positions, however, as her circumstances have changed over the intervening time Instead, she is seeking financial compensation for the loss she believes she incurred due to Management's failure to a wa r d her one of the positions resulting 6 - -- ------- ~--~--- .~ .~i from the CI-l030-92 ( 3 ) competition, although her grievance refers to the Employer's failure to a ward her a position in competition CI-I037-92 ( 24) She cIa ims that she relied to her detr iment, on Management's representation to her that she had a position resulting from competition CI-I037-92 (24 ) and that this c. position did not materialize She has, the Union maintains, suffered a financial loss whether or not the Board views the competitions as a singleicompetition or as two distinct ones The Union submits that the following clauses of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement apply 4 1 When a vacancy occurs in the Classified Service for a bargaining unit position or a new classified position is created in the bargaining unit, it shall be advertised for at least ten (10) working days prior to the established closing date when advertised within a ministry, or it shall be advertised for at least fifteen (l5) working days prior to the established closing date when advertised service-wide Where practicable, notice of vacancies shall be posted on bulletin boards 4 2 The notice of vacancy shall state, where applicable, the nature and title of position, salary, qualifications required, the hours-of-work schedule as set out in Article 7(Hours of Work), and the area in which the position exists 4 3 1 In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties Where qualifications and agility are relatively equal, seniority shall be the deciding factor Counsel for the Union argued that this is essentially a case about fairness and that when two things are so similar, that to create a distinction for expediency's sake, is neither reasonable, nor fair Ms Lopez submitted that, if the Board finds that the competitions were, indeed, separate, that the Union then would take the position that the competition process was so flawed and poorly managed as to render it invalid She argued further that 7 "" ~J .v the Employer rep~esented to the Grievor that the competition was a single competition and was not two, and that this was relied upon by the Grievor to her detriment and therefore, the Employer is estopped from saying that the processes were completely separate It is the duty of the Emp I oyer, Ms Lopez contended, to ensure t'hat job competitions are conducted within the terms of the Collective Agreement, and in a fair, reasonable" and non- arbitrary manner The process which was followed, she asserted, was significantly at variance with the norm and the competition process which employees had come to expect If the Employer intended to proceed differently, Ms Lopez maintained, it should have been more vigorous in communicating this difference to the candidates She asks the Board to find that the Employer's explanation of "simplification and time-saving" to be "unconvincing and invalid" and that the matter of funding was not mentioned to candidates prior to their competition outcome letters and should have been mentioned to them earlier in the process Ms Lopez referred the Board to the following cases OPSEU (Sullivan) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) 2411/87 which deals with the application of Article 4 3 of the C6llective Agreement and in which it wa s concluded that the inequality, and the full qualifications of the grievor when compared to the basic qualifications of the incumbent resulted in an overwhelming case in the Grievor's favour; Re United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 537, and Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. (197l), 22 L A C 149 (Johnston) which sets out some of the jurisprudence and principles on estoppel as follows There must be a course of conduct in which both parties act or both consent and in which the party who later 8 ;~ ;l, seeks to set up the estoppel is lead to suppose that the strict rights will not be enforced It follows that the party against whom the estoppel is set up will not be allowed to enforce his strict rights if it would be inequitable to do so The main situation where it would be inequitable for strict rights to be upheld would be where the party now setting up the estopp~l has relied to his detriment; and Re Toronto Western Hospital and Canadian Union of Public Employees., Local 1744 (1983), 9 LAC (3d) 243 (Langille) which considers estoppel in the labour relations context and sets out the fundamental notion that You cannot send the other party out on the limb and then cut them off The Employer submits that Ms Magliocco was not awarded one of) the positions in competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) because she had not filed an application for competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) According to Mr Thompson, "applying for the position was a pre- requisite for consideration" Mr Michael Mously, Counsel for the Employer, frames the issues as follows Issue I Should the Grievor be awarded a position in respect of a competition for which she did not apply 7 Issue 2 Should the Grievor be awarded a position for which there was ultimately no vacancy or newly created position 7 He takes the position that both questions should be answered in the negative; that there is no violation of the Collective Agreement, and that the grievance must fail on these counts Mr Mously made the point that the job posting is an invitation and that the onus rests with the employee to submit an application for a particular competition If an employee does 9 ~~ [~~: not file an application, he/she will not be considered in a given competition and it would, in his opinion, be unfair to candidates who have submitted applications ~n response to a job posting, for individuals who have not, to be included in the competition He also averred that the impression there were 27 positions for which the Grievor was competing under the perception of the melding of the competitions, was due to a wholly unsubstantiated belief on her part He rejected the Union's estoppel argument, submitting that estoppel requires representation between the parties and none had been made here He also made the point ! that, there was no evidence that prior to filing her grievance in February, 1993, Ms Magliocco had made any attempt to contact the Employer for clarification of her situation Mr Mously also addressed the application of Article 4 3 of the Collective Agreement supra, noting that it comes into effect when there are vacancies or newly created positions The Employer, he submitted, at the time of the competition while it still had the promise of funding, intended to create the positions upon receipt of the funding and opening of the building The fact that the Employer failed to fill the positions does not constitute a violation of Article 4 The job posting and cancellation were made in good faith The failure to fill the positions occurred for valid business reasons and was due to factors beyond the control of the Employer Mr Mously addressed the Union's argument that the process was flawed and argued that the standard to be applied when considering whether or not a process is flawed is that the flaw must be fatal to the outcome, not simply perceived as unfair The mistakes and typographical errors which the Employer acknowledged, would not, he submitted, have resulted in the process being fatally flawed and the outcome would have been the same Mr Mously referred the Board to the following cases 10 -~- :! 0; Re Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd. and Tobacco Workers' International Union, Local 319 (l974), 6 LAC (2d) 235 (Shime) which considers the invalidation of a job competitio~ through the posting of a position for longer than permitted under the Collective Agreement, a situation that could find a paralle I in the instant case were the Grievor (Ms Magliocco) allowed to compete for a position for which she had not submitted an application; OPSEU (Union) and The Cr own in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) 3094/91 in which the purpose and application of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement and the Employer's right not to fill a vacancy are analyzed and commented on Article 4 is designed to prevent the Employer from filling, in subst~nce, a vacancy, without posting it In order that there be a violation of Article 4, there has to be (a) a vacancy, and (b) a filling of that vacancy There may be situations whether because of lack of funding or because the Employer has made a decision to reduce the level of service to the public regardless of the funding available Such circumstances would fall within the Employer's right to determine complement; Re International Association of Machinists, Lodqe 1703, and Perfect Circle-Victor Division, VNG Auto Parts Ltd. (l970), 21 LAC 147 (Hanrahan) wherein the Company posted a job the incumbent of which had indicated that he/she would accept a promotion When the promotion was refused and the incumbent remained in the position, the senior applicant grieved entitlement to this job It was held that the Company was no longer obliged to consider the applicant as the job was no longer opened, as required by the collective agreement, and the Company did not need an additional employee or replacement; and Re Iilternational Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. and United Steelworkers (1974), 6 LAC (2d) 104 (Rayner) 11 ~ tk1 home in Cambridge Ms Magliocco testified as to her impressions of the job competition process and stated that she had heard from Mimico Correctional Centre employees that "they were amalgamating two competitions in one interview process" In December 1992, she thought that there were 27 positions - "one set of interviews for two postings, the.refore you add them together" The amalgamation of competitions has, according to her, been done before As we 11 , she stated that she heard from staff that the ranking was 1 to 27 She also testified to the fact that she had received unofficial congratulations from the Superintendent at the Waterloo Detention Centre in January, 1993 She spoke of the weeks of frustration which she experienced, wondering where she would be working. She was under the impression that the Detention Centre opening would take place in mid-November, 1992, the time which was give in the Opportunity Bulletin in August/September, 1992 She acknowledged in cross examination that she was aware of the staggered start dates, as she had read about this in the posting Ms Magliocco maintains that she did not understand from the December 15, 1992 letter, infra, that the appointment to positio.ns was conditional on funding being received She filed her grievance on February 11, 1993 It is the Union's position that these competitions were, in effect, one single competition rather than two separ~te and distinct competitions, and that, in accordance with Article 4 3 1 of the Collective Agreement the Grievor should have been awarded one of the three vacant positions as she would have been selected if she had been put up against the three successful candidates She is not, at this point seeking to be placed in one of these positions, however, as her circumstances have changed over the intervening time Instead, she is seeking financial compensation for the loss she believes she incurred due to Management's failure to a wa r d her one of the positions resulting 6 - -- ------- ~--~--- .~ .~i from the CI-l030-92 ( 3 ) competition, although her grievance refers to the Employer's failure to a ward her a position in competition CI-I037-92 ( 24) She cIa ims that she relied to her detr iment, on Management's representation to her that she had a position resulting from competition CI-I037-92 (24 ) and that this c. position did not materialize She has, the Union maintains, suffered a financial loss whether or not the Board views the competitions as a singleicompetition or as two distinct ones The Union submits that the following clauses of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement apply 4 1 When a vacancy occurs in the Classified Service for a bargaining unit position or a new classified position is created in the bargaining unit, it shall be advertised for at least ten (10) working days prior to the established closing date when advertised within a ministry, or it shall be advertised for at least fifteen (l5) working days prior to the established closing date when advertised service-wide Where practicable, notice of vacancies shall be posted on bulletin boards 4 2 The notice of vacancy shall state, where applicable, the nature and title of position, salary, qualifications required, the hours-of-work schedule as set out in Article 7(Hours of Work), and the area in which the position exists 4 3 1 In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties Where qualifications and agility are relatively equal, seniority shall be the deciding factor Counsel for the Union argued that this is essentially a case about fairness and that when two things are so similar, that to create a distinction for expediency's sake, is neither reasonable, nor fair Ms Lopez submitted that, if the Board finds that the competitions were, indeed, separate, that the Union then would take the position that the competition process was so flawed and poorly managed as to render it invalid She argued further that 7 "" ~J .v the Employer rep~esented to the Grievor that the competition was a single competition and was not two, and that this was relied upon by the Grievor to her detriment and therefore, the Employer is estopped from saying that the processes were completely separate It is the duty of the Emp I oyer, Ms Lopez contended, to ensure t'hat job competitions are conducted within the terms of the Collective Agreement, and in a fair, reasonable" and non- arbitrary manner The process which was followed, she asserted, was significantly at variance with the norm and the competition process which employees had come to expect If the Employer intended to proceed differently, Ms Lopez maintained, it should have been more vigorous in communicating this difference to the candidates She asks the Board to find that the Employer's explanation of "simplification and time-saving" to be "unconvincing and invalid" and that the matter of funding was not mentioned to candidates prior to their competition outcome letters and should have been mentioned to them earlier in the process Ms Lopez referred the Board to the following cases OPSEU (Sullivan) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) 2411/87 which deals with the application of Article 4 3 of the C6llective Agreement and in which it wa s concluded that the inequality, and the full qualifications of the grievor when compared to the basic qualifications of the incumbent resulted in an overwhelming case in the Grievor's favour; Re United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 537, and Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. (197l), 22 L A C 149 (Johnston) which sets out some of the jurisprudence and principles on estoppel as follows There must be a course of conduct in which both parties act or both consent and in which the party who later 8 ;~ ;l, seeks to set up the estoppel is lead to suppose that the strict rights will not be enforced It follows that the party against whom the estoppel is set up will not be allowed to enforce his strict rights if it would be inequitable to do so The main situation where it would be inequitable for strict rights to be upheld would be where the party now setting up the estopp~l has relied to his detriment; and Re Toronto Western Hospital and Canadian Union of Public Employees., Local 1744 (1983), 9 LAC (3d) 243 (Langille) which considers estoppel in the labour relations context and sets out the fundamental notion that You cannot send the other party out on the limb and then cut them off The Employer submits that Ms Magliocco was not awarded one of) the positions in competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) because she had not filed an application for competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) According to Mr Thompson, "applying for the position was a pre- requisite for consideration" Mr Michael Mously, Counsel for the Employer, frames the issues as follows Issue I Should the Grievor be awarded a position in respect of a competition for which she did not apply 7 Issue 2 Should the Grievor be awarded a position for which there was ultimately no vacancy or newly created position 7 He takes the position that both questions should be answered in the negative; that there is no violation of the Collective Agreement, and that the grievance must fail on these counts Mr Mously made the point that the job posting is an invitation and that the onus rests with the employee to submit an application for a particular competition If an employee does 9 ~~ [~~: not file an application, he/she will not be considered in a given competition and it would, in his opinion, be unfair to candidates who have submitted applications ~n response to a job posting, for individuals who have not, to be included in the competition He also averred that the impression there were 27 positions for which the Grievor was competing under the perception of the melding of the competitions, was due to a wholly unsubstantiated belief on her part He rejected the Union's estoppel argument, submitting that estoppel requires representation between the parties and none had been made here He also made the point ! that, there was no evidence that prior to filing her grievance in February, 1993, Ms Magliocco had made any attempt to contact the Employer for clarification of her situation Mr Mously also addressed the application of Article 4 3 of the Collective Agreement supra, noting that it comes into effect when there are vacancies or newly created positions The Employer, he submitted, at the time of the competition while it still had the promise of funding, intended to create the positions upon receipt of the funding and opening of the building The fact that the Employer failed to fill the positions does not constitute a violation of Article 4 The job posting and cancellation were made in good faith The failure to fill the positions occurred for valid business reasons and was due to factors beyond the control of the Employer Mr Mously addressed the Union's argument that the process was flawed and argued that the standard to be applied when considering whether or not a process is flawed is that the flaw must be fatal to the outcome, not simply perceived as unfair The mistakes and typographical errors which the Employer acknowledged, would not, he submitted, have resulted in the process being fatally flawed and the outcome would have been the same Mr Mously referred the Board to the following cases 10 -~- :! 0; Re Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd. and Tobacco Workers' International Union, Local 319 (l974), 6 LAC (2d) 235 (Shime) which considers the invalidation of a job competitio~ through the posting of a position for longer than permitted under the Collective Agreement, a situation that could find a paralle I in the instant case were the Grievor (Ms Magliocco) allowed to compete for a position for which she had not submitted an application; OPSEU (Union) and The Cr own in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) 3094/91 in which the purpose and application of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement and the Employer's right not to fill a vacancy are analyzed and commented on Article 4 is designed to prevent the Employer from filling, in subst~nce, a vacancy, without posting it In order that there be a violation of Article 4, there has to be (a) a vacancy, and (b) a filling of that vacancy There may be situations whether because of lack of funding or because the Employer has made a decision to reduce the level of service to the public regardless of the funding available Such circumstances would fall within the Employer's right to determine complement; Re International Association of Machinists, Lodqe 1703, and Perfect Circle-Victor Division, VNG Auto Parts Ltd. (l970), 21 LAC 147 (Hanrahan) wherein the Company posted a job the incumbent of which had indicated that he/she would accept a promotion When the promotion was refused and the incumbent remained in the position, the senior applicant grieved entitlement to this job It was held that the Company was no longer obliged to consider the applicant as the job was no longer opened, as required by the collective agreement, and the Company did not need an additional employee or replacement; and Re Iilternational Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. and United Steelworkers (1974), 6 LAC (2d) 104 (Rayner) 11 t ~ in which the issue of whether the company could cancel job postings during the posting process and refuse to come to a final decision as to who is or would be the successful cand idatewas examined and in which the board concluded that the company was entitled to cancel t.he job posting procedures if, during those procedures, it determines bona fide, that the vacancy for which it posted, no longer exists A review of the documents and correspondence is necessary to determine whether or not the two competitions became one, if that was the Employer's intention, or if that was the impression given to candidates It will also be helpful in determining the intention of the Grievor Opportunity Bulletins A compar ison of the Opportunity Bulletins (Appendix A) for the two competitions shows a number of differences over and above the posting and closing dates CI-1030-92 CI-1037-92 Clearance It No clearance * 12 hour shifts 40 hours/week Correctional Centre Correctional Complex No qualification re Qualification re starting starting date date Grievor's Application Ms Shelli Magliocco 2335 Lakeshore Blvd West Apt No 316 Toronto, Ontario M8V 1B9 Mr I Hadden, September 17, 1992 Superintendent 12 '!, Mimico Correctional Complex 130 Horner Avenue Toronto, Ontario M8Z 4X8 Dear Mr Hadden RE: COMPETITION NUMBER CI-1037-92 Please accept this letter as my application for the position of General Duty Officer at the Mimico Correctional Complex During the course of my employment at Waterloo Detention Centre and Guelph Correctional Centre, I have developed the required skills in order to function efficiently as a General Duty Officer as well as Admi t and Discharge Officer As a General Duty Officer at Waterloo Detention Centre, I am responsible for the care, custody, control and supervision of adult male offenders As a result of my one year secondment position as Admi t: and. Discharge Officer, my knowledge has expanded with regards to proper warrant documentation and the Off e n d.e r Management Computer System I possess the ability to work effectively with inmates, peers, supervisors, volunteers and associated professionals in a competent and professional manner In addition, I have excellent oral and written communication skills As a result of my current employment at Waterloo Detention Centre, past employment at Guelph Correctional Centre and Kitchener House Community Resource Centre, I am able to combine my knowledge and experience in such a manner that I would be an effective team member with Mimico Correctional Complex I consent for my personnel file to be accessed for purposes of assessing my qualifications Attached, p 1 ea.s e find my resume outlining my qualifications for this position Yours truly (Signed) Shelli Magliocco Encl. This letter of application is for "COMPETITION NUMBER CI-1037-92" 13 -- s: and was filed on September 17, 1992, 18 days after the posting and 1 day before the closing of this competition, CI-I037-92 (24), and 31 days after the posting and l6 days after the closing of competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) Ms Magliocco refers as well to "Mimico Correctional Complex", the designation of the facility in competition CI-1037-92 (24) It is clear that she did not apply for competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) , nor is there any evidence or indeed suggestion that she intended to do so Grievor's Letter of Acknowledgement and Interview Confirmation '- The following letter to Ms Magliocco from Deputy Superintendent Bruce Thompson, acknowledged receipt of her application, informed her of the time and place of her interview and requested her to confirm her attendance The same letter was sent to those who applied for (a) CI-I037-92 (24) and/or (b) CI-I030-92 ( 3 ) October 29, 1992 Ms Shelli Magliocco Waterloo Detention Centre l82 Hespeler Road Cambridge, Ontario NlR 5V2 REFERENCE: COMPETITION CI-I030-92 & CI-1037-92 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS - MIMICO COMPLEX Dear Ms Magliocco Thank you for your application(s) for the above noted competition(s) As we stated on the Opportunity Bulletin(s), the competition(s) is open only to classified or l4 ~ "- unclassified staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services working at Mimico Correctional Centre or residing within forty kilometres of Mimico Correctional C eon t r e Therefore, relocation and/or commuting expenses are not applicable and will not be paid to the successful ~andidate(s) An interview has been scheduled in Room "A", Administration Bu i ld i ng, Mimico Correctional Centre, l30 Horner Avenue, Etobicoke, Ontario at 1645 hours on November 6, 1992 All candidates will be expected to complete a written exercise immediately after the interview Please confirm your intention to attend the interview by calling Ms Cathy Garnett at (416) 3l4-9003 before 16 00 hours on Tuesday, November 2, 1992 Yours truly, Mr B Thompson Deputy Superintendent cc Competition file BT ed The heading, REFERENCE: COMPETITION CI-I03rr-92 & CI-l037-92 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS - MIMICO COMPLEX, because "COMPETITION" is in .the singular, could be read as the two competitions having been merged Mr Thompson explained that this was a typographical error which suggests that the secretary neglected to include the "s" The Board is not convinced of this particular explanation but does accept that this could have been an oversight on the part of either the author or the secretary , It could also have been truncated usage which is increasingly prevalent in government correspondence The letter goes on to use (s) in referring to the "application(s)" and to the "above noted competition(s)", "Opportunity Bulletin(s)" and 15 ~ "competition(s)" The use of "(s)" in the body of the letter is, in the Board's opinion, sufficient to dispel any confusion which might have arisen with respect to the heading Grievor's Result Letter The following notification of her results in competition CI- lO37-92 (24 ) was sent to Ms Magliocco It refers specifically, and only, to competition CI-1037-92 (24 ) It also distinguishes between success in the competition and appointment to the position, stating clearly that Your appointment to the position is conditional upon funding being received for additional staffing complement and confirmation of the official Detention Centre opening Further, the position is not simply "conditional on funding", or "notification of funding", but rather "on receipt of funding" December l5, 1992 Ms S Magliocco Correctional Officer Waterloo Detention Centre REFERENCE: COMPETITION CI-1037-92 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MIMICO COMPLEX Dear Ms Magliocco Thank you for participating in the above-noted competition I am pleased to advise you that you have been selected as a successful candidate Your appointment to the position is conditional upon funding being received for additional staffing complement and confirmation of the official Detention Centre opening When further information is received by this office, a formal letter of appointment will be sent to you confirming the actual starting d'ate Congratulationsl l6 ---- .. Yours truly, B Thompson Deputy Superintendent ( A) cc Mr R Millar, Superintendent file BT cg Mr Bruce received a letter notifying him of his interview date which was similar to Ms Magliocco's Following the interview process he received the following letter with respect to his success in competition CI-I037-92 (24 ) Ed Bruce's Result Letter December 15, 1992 Mr E Bruce Correctional Officer Mimico Correctional Officer REFERENCE: COMPETITION CI-I037-92 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MIMICO COMPLEX Dear Mr Bruce Thank you for participating in the above-noted competition I am pleased to advise you that you have been selected as a successful candidate Your appointment to ~he position is conditional upon funding being received for additional staffing complement and confirmation of the official Detention Centre opening When further information is received by this office, a formal letter of appointment will be sent to you confirming the actual starting date Congratulations! l7 I I t Yours truly, (Signed) B Thompson Deputy Superintendent ( A) cc Mr I Hadden, Superintendent ( A) file BT cg Mr Bruce did not receive a letter notifying him of his lack of success in competition CI-l030-92 ( 3 ) He drew the conclusion that he was not successful in this competition It was Mr Bruce's unchallenged testimony that he had no official communication from the Employer between December 15, 1992 and June 15, 1993 (receipt of the June 10, 1993 letter), although he acknowledged that he understood, from the time of the interview, that the placement was conditional Mr Bruce enquired about his standing in the competition following the notification of the cancellation of the competition in June, 1993, and was informed that he ranked lath out of 24 or 27, he was not clear which Mr Slack, who had applied for both competitions, testified that at the outset, he understood that there were two separate competitions However, as of October, 1992, he understood that they "had been pulled into one", although at the time of the interview, he "knew" that there were 24 pos"i t ions and 3 positions He was not s.ure from whom he heard this, although he was "very sure" that the matter had been brought up at the ERe meeting The October 29, 1992 letter, supra, confirmed this in his mind, because it referred to "COMPETITION" (singular) in the reference Minutes of the December, 1992 and June, 1993 ERC meetings were filed as exhibits but no reference was found in them relating to the combining of these competitions, only to the cancellation of competition CI-I037-92 (24), and the fact of the cancellation was simply noted Mr Slack acknowledged that he 18 Il. ~ had not been in attendance at either meeting. According to Mr Slack, he was told by two supervisors, that he had done extremely well He testified however, that he was "hesitant" to accept these comments as he had part.icipated in five competitions, heard that he had done very well and had not, in the end been successful Mr Slack did follow up his lack of success in the competition, eventually filing grievances A considerable amount of Mr Slack's testimony reflected his own concern and unhappiness with his personal situation in relation to the job competition processe& in which he had been involved That testimony, is not, however, relevant to the issues which are being determined in this grievance and his concerns will be dealt with through the grievance procedure which he has initiated James Slack's Result Letter December 15, 1992 Mr J Slack Correctional Officer (Casual) Mimico Correctional Centre REFERENCE: COMPETITION CI-1030-92, CI-I037-92 Dear Mr Slack Thank you for participating in the above noted competition (sic] Unfortunately, you were not selected as one of the successful candidates Should you wish to discuss your participation in the competition, please contact the undersigned at your convenience Yours truly (Signed) B Thompson 19 "~ cc file BT cg Mr. Slack had applied for both competitions and both competition numbers are cited in the heading The opening sentence, however, thanks him for "participating in the abov~ noted competition.". In other' words, there is a discrepancy between the heading (2 numbers) and in the body (singular) The opening sentence Thank you for participating in the above noted competition is identical in all three letters As there were l20 applications (26 + 94) in the competition process, it is not unreasonable to expect that the individual who produced these letters, made use of the "Macro" feature on the computer It seems that she or he failed to adjust it for the two-competition candidates' letters The Board recognizes that the lack of change for the individual situations of candidates results in an error in the letters but, in the opinion of the Board, it is not reasonable to conclude that this was misleading or a misrepresentation After the letter of December 15, 1992, the next official correspondence which the Grievor received with respect to the position at the Detention Centre for which she had been a succesflful candidate was June 10, 1993, approximately 6 months after her result letter and 4 months after she had filed her gr ievance in connection with competition CI-I037-92 (24) . (No evidence was presented with respect to any correspondence received concerning the grievance procedure ) This was also true of Mr Bruce who had been a successful applicant in competition CI-I037-92 (24) . The letter follows 20 (~ ,;; The Grievor's Notification of Cancellation of Comp~1;ition CI- 1037-92 (24) June 10, 1993 Ms Shelli Magliocco Waterloo Detention Centre P 0 Box 307, 182 Hespeler Road Cambridge, Ontario NIR 5V2 REFERENCE Competition tCI-1037-92 General Duty Officer(s) (24) Mimico Correctional Complex Dear lis Magliocco Reference is made to the above noted competition and Mr B Thompson's letter of December 15, 1992 regarding. the position of general duty officer at the Mimico Correctional Complex Unfortunately, I must advise that this competition has been cancelled The decision to proceed with recruitment for these positions in November, 1992 was based on projected staffing levels for the opening of the new detention centre in early 1993 We have subsequently experienced delays in obtaining approved complement and associated funding, as well as a series of lengthy, unexpected construction delays More recently, staffing approvals have also been reduced as part of the Ministry I s. Expend i ture Control Plan These factors prejudice the competition and prevent us from proceeding wi th planned appointments It is therefore necessary to bring closure to this process and end the ongoing uncertainty being experienced by the participants Once these outstanding issues are resolved, and a firm date can be established for the opening of the detention centre, a new competition will be posited Should you wish to be considered for one of these positions, it wi 11 be necessary for you to re-apply to this new posting Should you have any further questions or concerns regarding this decision, you are invi ted to attend an information session scheduled for June 17, 1993, at 1330 hours, in the Administration building at the 2l 't (: Mimico Correctional Complex Should you wish to at tend, contact the Superintendent's secretary at # ( 416 ) 3 1 4 - 9 604 to confirm your attendance Alternatively, if you would prefer to obtain information from either Ms S Albert, Deputy Superintendent, or myself, please do not hesitate to call Your patience in t.his matter is very much appreciated Yours truly I Leithead, Superintendent c c Mr R Millar, Superintendent Mr R D Phillipson, Regional Director (A) , Metro Region Mr J Morris, Area Personnel Administrator, Metro Region Mr S Albert, Deputy Superintendept, Mimico Correctional Com~lex Mr G Harrison, President (A) OPSEU Local 521 The letter ;refers only to competition .CI-l037-92 (24), and to 24 General Duty Officer(s) which is to be expected since the 3 vacancies from competition CI-1030-92 had been filled for several months As well as cancelling the competition, the letter provides an explanation as to why the cancellation was necessary and gives notice that a new competition will be he ld when a firm date has been established for the opening of the Detention Centre Mr Thompson testified that the individuals who had been successful in competition C I -1'0 3 7 - 9 2 were not placed because, "funding, although promised, was not forthcoming" Ms Magliocco chose not to apply for the new competition, nor did she attend the information session A considerable portion of the cross-examination by the union Counsel, was directed at finding that the competition was flawed and that Mr Thompson had insufficient experience to run such a competition Mr Thompson set out the consultation process and the names and positions of those with whom he conferred in 22 \' Itl . organizing and carrying out the competitions He has acknowledged that there was a typing error and that it was a mistake not to have sent a letter to Mr Bruce regarding .competi tion CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) and not to have made a list of the competitors for competition CI-1030-92 He stated that he did not believe that any one or all of these mistakes would change the outcome of the competition Conclusion The Board has considered the viva voce and documentary evidence, and the arguments put forward by Counsel, and has arrived at the following findings and conclusions 1 There was never an~ intention on the part of the Employer to meld the two competitions into a single competition, nor, in its conduct of the competition process, did it misrepresent the situation to the Grievor or to the two candidates who testified, nor did it "send the other party out on a limb and then cut them off". The evidence presented by the Union with respect to the .p e r c e p t ion of the two competitions having been combined to form a single competition was gleaned from subjective impressions of the situation, some of them based on rumour and on incomplete and selected information The Board has concluded that competitions CI-1030-92 and CI-1037-92 were discrete competitions and that the use of a single interview and written examination process for the two competitions was within the Employer's discretion Further, it does not find the Employer's rationale for the s in g I e interview and examination process "unconvincing or invalid" 2 The Grievor, having failed to submit an application for competition CI-1030-92 ( 3 ) cannot be considered for one of the three vacancies posted in that competition, and 23 -~ ~ - .- ;.:- -- has no entitlement under Article 4 3 1 of the Collective Agreement, to one of the three positions filled through that competition The Board, therefore finds that the Employer is not in violation of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement as alleged by the Union 3 Mistakes in the process were acknowledged by the Employer The Board considers that these were of a minor nature and were not of s u f f i c ie n t gravity to result in the process being flawed Communication with the candidates could have been improved by a clear, effective notice on the Opportunity Bulletin of competition CI-1037-92 (24) stating that appointments to the positions were conditional on receipt of funding The use of 'COMPETITION(S), in the reference heading of correspondence would also have been more accurate 4 The Grievor's move to Toronto bote no relationship to the particular postings and was made at her own ini t tati ve The Employer's actions did not precipitate this move and it bears no responsibility for the Grievor's financial losses flowing from this decision 5 The Grievor's expectation that the Detention Centre would open mid-November 1992, must have had as its foundation, the August "Opportunity Bulletin" It is the only evidence supporting that particular time It must, however, have become clear during the early November interviews that this was at that point in time, unrealistic I 6 The Grievor's reading of the letter of December 15, 1992, was either selective or inaccurate with respect to the notice of the appointment to the position being 24 ~" ~ .. conditional on receipt of funding and on the opening of the Detention Centre The conditional aspect is clearly set out The Grievor's entering into an "Option to Purchase" agreement almost immediately after receiving the notice of h~r s.uccess in the competition was at her initiative She did not seek clarification from the Employer, nor, it seems, did she read the letter carefully and consider the wisdom of entering into an agreement based on the conditional appointment to the position The Employer does not bear responsibility for her failure to read the letter accurately nor for her haste in entering into an agreement and is not liable for any losses which may flow from this agreement 7 THe Employer is not restricted by the Collective Agreement from cancelling a job competition, provided that the cancellation is for bona fide reasons and the Board considers that "lack of funding" would fall within that category It is unfortunate that the decision with respect to these positions occurred so long after the sending out of the result letters to applicants An up-date during that period, although it would not have changed the outcome, would have been advisable Although employees are free to make enquiries, it would have been considerate of the Employer to have sent such an up-date 8 The Union argued that expediency should not be allowed to override fairness and since the Grievor ranked first, she should have received one of the three competition CI-I030-92 ( 3 ) positions It is the opinion of the Board that the action of the Employer in using a single interview and examination process for the sake of expediency did not create an unfair situation for the Grievor Although she may perce i ve 25 'j ~?t :~ - .- that the results are unfair, had she filed an application for competition CI-I030-92 ( 3) , and it is her responsibility to do .so, she would have been assigned to one of the t h.r e e vacant positions It is the responsibility of the Employer to issue the invitation by posting vacancies and newly created positions according to the Collective Agreement, which it did 9 It has been suggested that the Employer should bear some responsibility for the financial loss suffered by the Grievor because she continued her arrangement of residing in Toronto, commuting to Waterloo Detention Centre, and renting her home in Cambridge while waiting for the appointment to the position The Board recognizes that this arrangement involved the Grievor in increased operating expenses and that the delay in notification was a lengthy one It notes, however, that the conditional nature of the appointment was made clear wi thin six weeks of the interview and the notice to cancel the competition was sent out reasonably promptly following the notice of the funding cut There was no bad faith here, nor misrepresentation on the part of the Employer The Employer cannot be held financially responsible for the personal decisions and choices of employees in such situations For the above reasons, this grievance is dismissed 26 ---- 1 ~. ,~ Dated at Kingston '- /9 ~y Finley, ~ .~~ - Edward Seymour, Member o 9L-. 5 )l'..t/l;~ Allen Merritt, Member -- 27 -~------ -------- h. t-' t-n::: u u .4 ^ n , 39t1d 1ts.l.O,j. ** ----...- L ~. MInistry 01 Opportunity 3u )let; n Correc:tional Services Mlnlsttre des Annonce d'emp 0; Services correctfon"ela cr.DIAI'1 I IDA, 81, IK un. COMP!l'!'nYOJr (:%-1030-92 ApplicationS are invited tor the position ot, ClarDlr. tnr:Y 01'nCD (3) ClassU1cat10n: ~IQDL 01'nCR a Salary: $18.35 - $20.91 ~ baa: Schedule. 4.1 (12 ~ sbins) . LoCAtion: xiaiao oarr8Ct1a~ Ca~e 1.S0 Boner ~TQue, 'fo~ollto The Kimico COrrectional centre requires Mture, responsible individuals who can funct;j,on ettect1vely in II st~ctured. disciplined settinCJ to ~ona II full ranqe of duties related to the correctional care, cont:=oJ. and supervision of inmates on an a..igned abift OtJU.:Q'XCAnOJlB . Ontario Grade 12 or formal proof of an equivalent educational 8tand1nq; .aU.factory related work .~t:'ienc:e; 'jfoO<1 oral and. written cOlllllWlication skillsl qood. interpersonal sltills and. ability to work effectively with imrates, sapervJ.aora, peers, volunteers, etc.; ability to axerci.. aoun4 judqClMmt aDd react professionally to offender-relatec1inc1denta; knowlac1qe of relevant lBCJislAtion, regulAtions, policies, ~., knovledqe of security technique. an4 equipment; villi.nc;ness am. a1)llity to work rotat1nq ahifta, weekends and. hol.id.aye and. a))Uity to lIIAintain sat1stac:tory attendance. SUc:ceasful caIIlpletion o'f JlIaDdatory ainistry t:raininq plus OU yur'. satisfactory current exparienc:e aa a COrrectional Officer 1 (cand1dates lacking the above qualifications will be required to QJ1d.erfill at: the correctional Officer 1 level) lIOtlla 1 Applicants will be expec:tec1 to successfully oo~lete the Ministry Central ~cruit:mentte8tiDq to be .eUliJible tor an interview, unleaa currently employed on the classi~ied Dr unclassi~ied staff AS a Correctional. Officer 1 or 2. 2 AppliC411ta _y be short-lieted based upon the above quali:l:ications, SAtisfactory work performance and attendl2nc::8. 3. Applicants may be requirecl to successfully complete a written axam.ination in order to qaalUy for an interview. 4 Please include your consent: in a. coverinq letter to allow your personnel tile to be accesse4 for purposes of ass.ssinqyour qualifications Failure to include your consent vill result L~ your qualifications beinq assessed only on the ~1. of information contained in your application. Qua1ifiec! ane! eUqible applicant. u-. invited to aubait a detailed ~mae/application by 4:30 P II. on September 1, 1992 tot SUper1.DtaDdell1: Kiaico Cor%ecUoU1 CUU. 13 0 liOn.. JLnaGe ~oZOllt.o_ OIlta:lo as 4D ow. ~ IDllC:~U Jteatrioted to claslli:tlect ane! unclauitie4 .~t' of the Ministry at Correctional Services whose principal residence is within 40 JaIs at, or who already worle at, the Khico Correctional centre Poat:ac! in the Metro Reqion, Ontario Correctional :tn.sti~ute, Kaplehurst Correctional Centre and the Vanier centre t,Qr WCIIen. POS'l'ING DA1'Z Auquat. 19, 1992 CLOSINC DUZ, September 1, 1992 .DB%)ICA~BD '!'O JDI1l'I.01'Xmr. SQD%7r' -" 209....2130 3!:l\:M \ol(W 1dns 01 NOI!:l3~ 0~13w SJW ~O~~ .-..: 1 I 26 61 90ts ~ tV!' ~ c. , Appendix B (1-1. -.-- - -- .-- -- ----,.- ) -:-" ., .- ~- ,~,~ ~ .-.- Z - c (.I... C v M"'N ", v ,r"\ '" ..... ,.... .,... ..... ~ -~ \ - AUG" 1Q" ~, ~ ~3 ..,:;, ..... ; r-f I - &u::; f.o I (')~F'C!:: !. I CeNT ~ CCMP~4T!OR C!-1037-92 Applications axe 11'1vita4 for the poaition of: GJ:IIDAI. tlD'n arnaa (24) Classification. ~ Oft'XCD 2 salary. $11.35 - "20." par bcur Schedule. .&.7 l.&O bou:./veek) t.oca.~iolu 1I1mi"", C:=:ec:1:1cma1 CCIIplez 130 1Jo:1utr Avaue. 'J:aroD.to 'the Minlico Corr~ional COIIlplex requires llI&~ure, reSllOna1ble 1nd1viduala who CAD function effectively in a structured, disciplined setting, to perform a full r~ge of duties related to the correctional eare, control &Cd aupervision of iD\'lllltes on an assionecl shift, in either the Correctional. canere or the Detention centre (currently under constrUction with an exPeCted md-November 1992 openbg). Successful candidates identif1e4 through this cc=petition may I1Clt have starting datu establlahed until the actual opening date of the Detention centre has been determined. Starting dates IKY also. be staggered, to a~~t:e staff t.1'aiD1ng and. orientation. Init1.u aaa1CJ1:URn~ lIIlI.y De to e1.ther the correctiODal Centre or tba Detention Centre. QUM,InCM'IOICS . ontario Grade 12 or fomal ~roof of an equivalent e4ueaticmaJ. ft&.....4 ft9J .atisfactory related work experience; good oral and. written ~catlOll skills, goad interperaonal skills and. ability to wcxk effectively with imIIa.tu, supervisors, peers, volunteers, eta. J ability to exerCise ~ ju4qlllll8l1t and ~eact profe..lonally ~o off ander-related incidents, knowledge of rel.evant legislation, regulations, policies, etc., knawledge of aec:urity techniques and equipment, wlll1ngneaa and. al>lllty to work rotatinQ shifts, wetWmda and bo],lc1.ays and demonstratec1 ~lllty to maintain satisfactory attendance. SucCessful c:ompletion of lIanc1atory ministry tn.in1Dl) plus one year'. aatisfactory current experience aa a correc:ticmal ~fic.r 1 (c~c1ates lacking the above qualifications will be required to u=ut111 at the Ccx:rectional Officer 1 level). 1IC7.I:Z1 1 Applicant. will be expected to successfully c:aapl.ete the Ministry Centr..l Recruitment testing to be eli;1ble for an interview', unless eurrently ~loyed on the classifie4 or uncl....ified .talf a. a COrrectional Officer 1 or 2. 2 APPlicants may De short-listed based upon the al)ove qualifications, satisfactory work perfoDlAnCe and attenc1ance. 3 Applicants lIIlI.Y be required to suoceaafully camplete a written ex.~ination in order to qualify for an interview. 4. Pleue include your consent in a conring latter to allow your personnel file to be acc.sa~ for puz'PO." of assessing your qualificationa. Failure to include raur consent will result in your quallf1.cationa being uaea_ad onlY ClC ~ baai.- of infoxnaation cont.a1ne4 1n your appllcation. QUalified and eligible applicanta are invited to submit a detailed resume and application by .h 30 p.m. 00. Sel)tetllber 18.1991 tOt Bu;pedDteD4llltt · II1a1co CDrrect.1.onal ~lex 130 Korner Avuaa '.I:gronto, cmtarl.o XU .us L00/9130 )')Ud .\011 \oj ldns 01 NO I '))~ 0~1 3~S~\.ol ..O~ j .&.€ II 26 8Z 9nts =0 'i\\ .tW!' ~ ** ~l1d 111l.0l. .* ..__ .--. .- --- . . 2 >JlD oP SDaCBI Re.tricted. t.o classified and unclassif1ed .t4lff of the M1n1at:y of COrnctional Services permanently ~ea1d1n9 within 40 lema of, or currently workio9 at, the Mlmico Correctional Cclnplex. Posted in the Metro J.eg1on, and at tha ontario correedonal Iutituta, Maplehurst Correctional CclnPlex and. the Vaniar centre for Women. In accord&Dce with =ploymeut equity ~.la for this occupation, applicationa Ar8 particularly encouraged frClll alx)r1ginAl peoples, fr&nCOpbones, rl.c1a.l minorities AM WOIll8U. POS'rlNG ~'rB: ~ 31, 1992 CLOSING DAD. Se9~ 18. 1992 II'DBDICADD'1'O BIInODBII'l' ~ - . ) . - 1.00/1.(30 3!:t;d IoIllJ l.dns Ol. NOI~3~ O~l.3W SJIJ WO~~ 8E: .1 \ 26 82 9n~ .