HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0701.Britton.95-06-09
~L :":. --i . '';j' . ~ , . :}' . .-
--=.~ - -- - - ~
,~~ , ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
: '~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO f: c,t\v~ Or-
1111' GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE !\~) ~C /, c\
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT ~' ~).; [\., '"
, \. ~~--.o::
BOARD DES GRIEFS . ,C- .
yCYV, ,'J..-".
\:F
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELlEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 701/93
OPSEU # 93B712
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
I
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Britton)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of the Attorney General)
Employer
BEFORE H Finley ~ Vice-Chairperson
J Carruthers Member
0 Clark Member
FOR THE A Lee
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE S Rodela
EMPLOYER Employee Relations Consultant
Ministry of the Attorney General
FOR THE S Ackerblade
THIRD PARTY
HEAR:tNG December 14, 1994
~~~
GSB 0701/93
DEe I S ION
The Grievor, Nicole Britton, grieves that the Employer failed
to award her the position of Administrative Representative in
violation of Article 4 3 1 of the Collective Agreement That
article reads as follows
In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary
consideration to qualifications and ability to perform
the required duties Where qualifications and ability
are relatively equal, seniority shall be the deciding
factor
Ms Britton has a seniority date of January 4, 1988, a date which
is earlier than that of the successful candidate, the incumbent,
Sandi Ackerblade Ms Ackerblade was notified of the hearing by
the Union, chose to attend, and participated Ms :Ackerblade has
a seniority date of March 2, 1992
The Union is seeking to have the Grievor placed in the
position with retroactivity and interest to March 2, 1992, or, in
the alternative, to have the competition rerun and limited to the
Grievor and the Incumbent The Employer asks the Board to find
that the competition was not fatally flawed and that the outcome
would not be different if the competition were rerun Further the
Employer disputes the Union's request to have interest included as
part of any remedy since it was only notified of this on the day of
the hearing
The position of Administrative Representative at the Family
Support Plan, Whitby Office, was advertised internally on December,
1992, following a seven-month stay in surplus The competition
closed on January 13, 1993 The purpose of the position is "To
provide administrative and clerical services, and to perform relief
secretarial duties for the Regional Family Support Plan Office
The posting read as follows
If you are highly motivated and experienced, join us to
\s- __-:'il
provide administrative and clerical support to the
regional finance manager You will prepare
correspondence and reports, perform accounting and
computerized recordkeeping functions; help prepare
calendarization and projection of office budget, maintain
personnel files, inventory control and moni tor office
equipment File AG-95A
Qualifications knowledge of financial and human-
resources administrative procedures, reconciliation,
recordkeeping and budget processes, demonstrated ability
to use fully programmable word-processing, spreadsheet
and database software; typing skills to 50 wpm ; good
communication and interpersonal skills, ability to work
under pressure and meet deadlines, excellent organization
skills Physical demands analysis available
It is the opinion of the Board that the posting is an accurate
reflection of the duties in the position Specification, although
they are set out in more detail in the specification itself
Due to circumstances which will be set out below, there were
two Selection Panels The first was made up of
Ruth Miller Finance Manager, Family Support
(Chair) Plan, Whitby
Robin Armstrong Regional Manager
Jayne Nevins Systems Project Coordinator
The second consisted of !
Ruth Miller Finance Manager, Family Support
(Chair) Plan, Whitby
Robin Armstrong Regional Manager
Linda Kurello Courts Administration
Ms Miller testified that this was the first time that she had
carried out the duties of a competition chair
Both the Grievor and Incumbent had worked under Ms Miller's
supervision in the past, for approximately the same length of time,
that is, between 8 and 12 months The Incumbent filled the
position in an acting capacity from May, 1992, for approximately 8
months She has been in the position since March 2, 1992
From the 41 applications received by Mr Armstrong, 6
candidates were selected to proceed to the interview stage, among
f.i:-- ~--'fa I
them the Grievor and the Incumbent On February 5, 1993, the six
completed a typing test, participated in the interview, and
undertook a written test on work organization It appears that ~he
typing test was not scored in advance of the interviews The
process and the resultant relevant scores follow
Screeninq Sheet
This instrument was used for the initial stage to determine who
should proceed to the interview stage, and applicants were graded
based on their applications and resumes The Screening Sheets
submitted for the Grievor and the Incumbent show totals of 330 and
350 respectively, although the final category, wor,th 10 points,
that of motivation, has not been scored on Ms Britton's Removing
that category to take out the scoring discrepancy, the Grievor
would have scored 330, and the Incumbent, 340
Typinq Test
On the Typing Test, which was administered on the day of the
interview and just prior to it, candidates were required to
demonstrate a minimum 50 wpm skill level The Grievor scored 49 7
with 7 5 errors and 45 7 with 9 5 errors, corrected scoring, and
the Incumbent, 66, with no errors (Evidence demonstrated that
there were two full-point unscored errors on the Grievor's test )
Orqanizational Test
The written Organizational Test, administered on the day of the
interview, following the interview, is one which had been used on
numerous occasions It was scored out of 16, the Grievor's score
was 12, the Incumbent's 15 These were incorporated in the scoring
of the Interview/Test, below
Interview/Test
In the Interview/Test the Grievor and Incumbent scored as follows
Nicole Britton Sandi Ackerblade
3
~~ -tt~
R Miller 87 95
R Armstrong 93 88
J Nevins 91 87
Average 90 33 (out of 105) 90 00 (out of 105)
All other candidates scored in the upper seventies at the
Interview/Test
At the end of this process, Selection Panel 1 had "identified
two candidates for the position" It had also concluded, Ruth
Miller testified, that it "did not have enough detail" and that the
team members wanted more information than they had received from
the process which took place on February 5, 1993 Ms Miller then
contacted the Human Resources Head Office She testified that she
was informed in response to her proposal to have a s,econd phase to
the process, that the selection process was not over until
everything was complete She took that to mean that a second phase
was acceptable Ms Miller also received some assistance from
H~an Resources with the testing instruments which would be used in
Phase II There was no evidence that at this poi~t she or they
considered the application of Article 431 of the Collective
Agreement, supra Nor was there any evidence which suggested that
there was any intent on the part of the Employer to avoid placing
the Grievor in the position The two top candidates were then
informed that there would be a second part to the sel~ction process
because the Grievor and. the Incumbent were "so close" and the
Selection Panel concluded that it needed more information in order
to arrive at a decision Ms Miller testified that she did not
I
consider involving the other 4 candidates in Phase II because they
were all clearly below the level of the Grievor and the Incumbent
On February 12, 1993, these two individuals submitted to two
written tests and an interview The other four candidates were not
invited to participate This phase consisted of the following
segments
4
~ _. ~1J.'
Dicta Test
The Dicta Test which tests word recognition, word usage and
spelling was provided by Human Resources and is a test which has
been used over a long period of time The Grievor scored 12/13/10
for an average of 30 out of 50, while the Incumbent scored
14/15/14, for an average of 35 out of 50
Spread Sheet Test
The Spread Sheet test, compiled by Ms Miller, was a generic test,
requiring the candidates to generate a spread sheet, using the
Lotus progranune According to Ms Miller, this activity is a
requirement of the job The test was scored out of 30 and the
Grievor received 3, while the Incumbent scored 26
Interview
The interview portion of Phase II, according to Ms Miller, the
Grievor and the Incumbent, although shorter, was more in depth
than the interview portion of Phase I The two candidates scored
as follows in Interview II
Nicole Britton Sandi Ackerblade
R Miller 55 63 \
R Armstrong 52 61
L Kurello 54 57
Average 53 67 (out of 80) 60 33 (out of 80)
The overall averages, that is the scores of the Dicta Test, the
Spread Sheet Test, and the Interview, were for Ms Britton 55%, and
for Ms Ackerblade 75%
The Grievor and the Incumbent both gave evidence respecting
r
their personal situations and experience, as well as their
impressions of both phases of the competition
5
fl, ~ ~
~....;, 7
Ms Britton testified that one of the reasons that she applied
for the competition was that she was attempting to relocate to
Whitby She testified that she prepared for the com~etition during
the week leading up to February 5th According to her, she was
not surprised by any of the questions and felt confident after the
interview and the organizational test This was in contrast to her
experience a week later Ms Britton testified that when she was
informed of Phase II on February la, 1993, by Ms Miller, she
inquired as to the reason for the second interview and was told
that it was because she and the Incumbent were so close She
inquired about the Collective Agreement and Ms Miller told her
that she would look into the matter with Human Resources She
testified that she was informed on the day prior to the Phase II
competition by Ms Miller that she was not able to get a response
from Human Resources and that Phase II of the competition would be
proceeding and that there would be more in-depth testing of the
knowledge of the candidates of the Lotus spread sheet programme
Ms Britton testified that she had not been exposed to Word Perfect
or Lotus for more than a year and a half and that she had no access
to that computer programme to be able to practise She
acknowledged that her skills in this area were "vE?ry rusty", in
spite of the fact that she holds the government certificates 1, 2,
and 3 for Lotus She indicated as well that the Dicta Tes twas
unfamiliar to her She found that the questions put to her in this
interview demanded very specific information and she did not feel
"confident at all"
Ms Ackerblade testified that she found the questions in the
Phase I interview relevant and commented that they required the
candidate to think both procedurally and functionally Those
questions put to her in the interview in phase II were more in
depth and demanded a specific answer, particularly with respect to
\
software Ms Ackerblade also testified that the bicta Test was
unfamiliar to her She explained with respect to the Lotus test
that she was familiar with Lotus as she had recently completed
6
..'; -<. iM:
Lotus 1, 2, 3 at the local Community College and had taken Word
Perfect 5 in 1993 She explained that she was working towards a
computer specialist certificate She testified that, based on her
experience of acting in the position, Lotus was needed for the
position Ms Ackerblade stated that at the time of the
competition she had not carried out one-on-one 'computer training
with individuals on a formal basis, but but had assisted
individuals with computer problems in her acting pOpition
On February 16, 1993, Ms Miller contacted one referee for the
Grievor and one for the Incumbent There was no evidence that
reference checks were carried out on other candidates or that other
selection panel members took part in the reference checks Ms
Britton's reference related to her position as Administrativ~
Assistant in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations,
where she was employed from March 1, 1991 to March 1, 1992 The
Incumbent's reference was from Keg Restaurants Ltd where she had
been the Office Manager from 1982 to July 1991 Both references
indicated that the referee would rehire The Grievor's reference
was less superlative than the Incumbent's The second reference
I
for each was provided by Ruth Miller f~r whom each had worked She
recommended both for rehire and, the overall commentary with
respect to the Grievor was slightly less superlative than that
respecting the Incumbent The final decision was a combination of
Phases I and II of the interview and tests, the typing test, the
reference checks and the candidates' performance at the interviews
Ms Miller was not clear as to the weight given to the references
No searches were done of the applicants' personnel files, as
it was not, Ms Miller testified, the practice in the office, nor
was she aware that they were available to the Selection Panel
Arqument
Anne Lee, for the Union, stated that the Union takes the
7
~1 "" :f.!
position that the Employer has violated Article 4 3 1 , supra, in
failing to award the position to the Grievor She submitted that
-
the competition held on February 5, 1993, is the only one which the
Board should be looking at, and that "Phase II" should be given no
weight at all To give weight to the second phase, would be to
fail to give meaning to the term "relative equality" She argued
I
that to give any weight or credence to Phase II, would mean that
each time the Employer was faced with two or more candidates who
were relatively equal, it would simply add another part She
wonders what the Employer would have done if the Grievor and the
Incumbent had tied on Phase II To fail to give credit for
seniority as the Employer has done here, is tantamount to changing
the rules in midstream and that, Ms Lee maintains, must not be
allowed
Ms Lee was also critical of the Employer's approach to the
Typing Test She pointed out that the Grievor had in her file, a
Government Certificate for Typing which met the requirement of the
position, and this was noted in her resume Ms Lee submitted that
previous Boards have acknowledged that certain individuals do not
do well in interviews and on tests and that these should not,
therefore, be the determining factor She asked what the Selection
Panel would have done if the Grievor had been successful and it had
then discovered that she did not meet the typing requirement
Would it have reversed its decision ?
There is, Ms Lee maintained, sufficient evidence to show that the
Grievor was relatively equal with respect to qualifications and
ability to perform the required duties of this position and she
asked that the Board award the position to the Grievor on the
demonstrated basis that she has the required skills and ability,
and greater seniority
In the alternative, if we choose to consider Competition II
(Phase II) as part of the process, Ms Lee submitted that it is
fatally flawed because only the top two candidates, were assessed,
8
i
"'- -
... _ t~
and it is therefore unfair to the six candidates for the following
reasons
It is an unequal assessment of all the
candidates who are deprived of the opportunity
of improving their scores,
Competi tion II (Phase II) was a different
panel which results in the assessment not
being equal and fair overall;
No files were checked and previous Boards have
found this to be fatal;
Reference checks were given no weight, and
further were done by only one panel member, a
situation which Boards have found created a
fatal flaw in a competition,
The second interview was more job specific
which would give an advantage to the Incumbent
who was acting in the position
In the alternative, and for the abo~e reasons, the Union asked the
Board to find that the competition was fatally flawed and that it
should be rerun but, since the other candidates have not grieved
the outcome, that it should be rerun with the Grievor and the
Incumbent as the only two candidates
The Union relied on the following cases
OPSEU (Edna Skaqen and Kathrvne Glemnitz) and The Crown
in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General) ,
GSB File Number 1934/87 & 1936/87 (19~8)
OPSEU (T. Sahota) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry
of Government Services), GSB File Number 2238/87, (1988)
OPSEU (Hunte) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry
of Housinq), GSB File Number 2147/90, (1991)
OPSEU (Rankin) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry
of Correctional Services), GSB File Number 612/90, (1991)
Susonna Rodela, for the Employer, took the position that the
Employer has complied with the first part of Article 4 3 1, supra,
9
"" !~,
.', -
in that it identified Ms Ackerblade as the superior candidate and
as a result, the second part, relative equality, did not come into
play in the competition The superiority of the Incumbent as
candidate for the position, has, she submitted been demonstrated
through evidence She has 9 years' relevant job experience
compared to the Grievor's one, has undertaken relevant educational
courses (Word Perfect, Lotus, Accounting) on her own initiative,
and has acted in the position The Selection Panel would have
erred, she argued, had it ignored the acting period and there was
no evidence to suggest that the Selection Panel or any member of it
was trying to give Ms Ackerblade an advantage Ms Britton's
failure to achieve the minimum required score on the typing test
was a result of her acknowledged "rustiness", not of any difficulty
which she experienced with the equipment It is appropriate, Ms
Rodela maintained, for Management to test for typing in order to
asses~ the current ability of a candidate, whether or not that
candidate has a certificate on file It does not, in this case,
Ms Rodela argued, make sense to go back and recreate the situation
of 2 years ago Further, she contends that the Grievor cannot be
appointed to the position by the Board since she failed to meet the
minimum typing requirement set out in the position ,posting She
noted further that the Incumbent was superior in the Dicta Test and
clearly superior in the Spread Sheet test The lack of a search of
the personnel files is mitigated, Ms Rodela submitted, by the
direct knowledge of the work performance of both Ms Britton and
Ms Ackerblade, by Ms Miller
The onus is on the Union, Ms Rodela maintained, to
demonstrate that if the flaws in the selection process were
corrected, that the outcome would have been different Even if
Phase II of the competition was seriously flawed, there are still
demonstrable differences between the Grievor and the Incumbent
which point to the Incumbent being the superior candidate It is
the Employer's position that even if one eliminates Phase II that
the outcome would be the same and the flaws are not, therefore
fatal to the competition Ms Rodela submitted that the decision
10
" ~ ~,
I
of the Selection Panel should be allowed to stand If the Board
decides that the Phase II interview and tests should not have been
considered, then, the outcome should be allowed to stand based on
the Grievor's failure in the typing test However, should the
Board find that the flaws are sufficient that the competition is
fatally flawed, the competition should then be rerun
The Employer relied on the following cases
OPSEU (McIlwain) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministrv
of Consumer and Commercial Relations), GSB File Number 628/89,
(1990)
OPSEU (Peters) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry
of Revenue), GSB File Number 1423/90, (1991)
OPSEU (Desi/Bousquet) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario
(Ministry of Natural Resources), GSB File Number 226&227/89,
(1989)
OPSEU (D. Renton & J. Ross) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario
(Ministrv of Government Services) , GSB File Number
1577&1578/84 (1986)
OPSEU (Rita Strazds) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario
(Ministry of Natural Resources), GSB File Number 88/83 (1983)
OPSEU (Couture) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministrv of
Correctional Services), GSB File Number 967/89 (1991)
I
OPSEU (D. Bent) and The Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of
Transportation) , GSB File Number 1733/86 (1989)
In reply, Ms Lee clarified that it was nqt the Union's
position that Ms Ackerblade's acting position was inappropriate
but that the questions should have been designed to compensate for
that, in other words, they should not have been job specific
Further, it was her opinion that the typing test should not have
been part of the final decision, but should have been part of the
pre-selection process The reasonableness of the tests is not the
issue, she stated It is the addition of tests (Phase II) to
which the Union objects
11
.....
'. "., ..
Ms Ackerblade spoke to several issues in reply She stated
that it was her impression that the typing certificates, and she
had one in her file, expired after one year She also submitted
that the interview questions in both Phase I and Phase II were
broadly based She also commented that she believed that the fact
she had been supervised by Ms Miller for an 8 month period has
little relevance to the process in that she and Ms Miller worked
on different floors, while Ms Miller and Ms Britton worked on the
same floor
Decision
The Employer's obligations in a job competition under this
Collective Agreement are set out in Quinn and the Crown in Riqht of
Ontario (Ministry of Transportation and Communications), GSB 9/78,
which is cited in Skaqen & Glemnitz, supra,
the employer must employ a process of decision-making
designed to consider the relative qualifications and
abili ty 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 and properly compare the qualifications and
abilities of the competing applicants
In order to fulfill these obligations, the employer must
design and utilize a selection process in job
competitions that is consistent with the purpose of the
selection process Thus, under this collective
agreement, the process must be designed to elicit in a
systematic manner sufficiently comprehensive informatlion
about each applicant relevant to the qualifica:tions 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
The requirements necessary for an acceptable competition
within the Collective Agreements between the parties were later
articulated in the jurisprudence of the Grievance Settlement Board
They were summarized in OPSEU (MacLellan and De Grandisand the
12
I
I
.- ~, ~
Crown in Riqht of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), GSB
506/81/ 507/81/ 690/81 It lists the following components which
should be part of a fair and reasonable job competition
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
insofar 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 all 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
It states as well that in the application of the process that
Failure on the part of the employer to follow the
criteria set out above will not necessarily result in the
results of a competition being set aside
This Board has reviewed the evidence in the above context and has
arrived at the following conclusions
The holding of a second stage of the interview and
testing phase of this competition was not contemplated at
the outset and was / in the opinion of this Board,
questionable It is reasonable for candidates to be
apprised of the stages and format of a job competition in
advance and it is to be expected that the Employer. will
not vary from that format during the process A written
outline of the process made available to candidates would
be one way of helping to ensure that this occurs
When the Employer concluded that it did not have
sufficient information, it should have declared the first
competition invalid and rerun the competition at that
13
I
---
"C .-
,....~ ~:
time for all 6 candidates
The Screening Sheet which was used as the initial
filtering mechanism was based solely on the written
submissions of applicants This in and of itself is not
problematic However, it does have limitations and only
certain things can be soundly assessed by the use of such
a testing instrument The Board questions the
effectiveness of portions of this particular instrument
when applied to a group consisting of some individuals
known to the assessor, and others not known to the person
carrying out the screening For instance, under
"Good inter-personal skills
i r [sic] working in a team setting "
If one is familiar with the individual one may well have
knowledge of that individual's ability to work
successfully in a team setting However, if one is not
familiar with the individual being assessed, the fact
that he or she works in a team setting gives no
indication of the success with which that is carried out
A similar problem arises with
"Good communication skills
- verbal explain procedures and policies "
One cannot assess an individual's verbal skills based on
a written submission
Further, under
"Highly motivated
- achievements indicate use of initiative"
the question arises as to how an assessor would score an
individual who had been constantly in the workforce
compared to an individual who had removed him or herself
from the workforce to parent children on a temporary but
full-time basis As well, an assessor looking at
motivation based on a covering letter, job application
and resume would be unlikely to become aware of the
obstacles 'which the various candidates have overcome in
order to gain their achievements, nor would the starting
points of all candidates be equal or apparent
If the Employer did not intend to award the position to
candidates who did not meet the typing standard of 50
wpm, then the typing test should have been carried out as
the second stage of the screening process and scored at
that time, and candidates who failed to meet the
14
-- --
~ ~~ .'fJ-t
requirement should have been screened out at the pre-
interview stage
If the Employer did not intend to award the position to
a candidate who did not meet the minimum typing standard
of 50 wpm, even though this test was not part of the
pre-interview screening process, it should not have
allowed Ms ,Britton to continue on to the second phase
The selection process which was held on February 5, 1993,
was deficient in that it neither fully nor adequately
covered the areas of skill and ability set out in the
position specification and the posting, particularly the
spreadsheet requirement The Board considers that the
components of the 2 phases together, would adequately
assess the areas of skill and ability of candidates who
met the minimum typing criterion
The Employer did not rely on a single evaluation tool and
the variety of tools in Phases I and II combined, offered
the Grievor and the Incumbent, but not the four other
candidates, a variety of opportunities of displaying the
relevant skills and abilities
There is no allegation that irrelevant factors were
considered, even those applied in Phase II, and the Board
so finds
Personnel files were not reviewed by any members of
either Selection Panel and in this respect the Board
finds that the pr9cess was deficient The Board does not
consider the fact that Ms Miller was familiar with the
Grievor and the Incumbent as a substitute for this
review First of all, there were the four other
candidates to consider Secondly, a review by a single
panel member does not offer the same assurance of
objectivity as does a review by each member of a
selection panel Thirdly, no review at all precludes a
selection panel from considering information which will
certainly be relevant and indeed may be crucial
The Union suggested that possession of a government
certificate of competency in typing should be taken as
pr<?of of current competence The Board disagrees and
refers to the Grievor's situation as an illustration of
the problems inherent in doing so The Grievor, who held
government certificates of competency in both typing and
Lotus 1, 2, and 3, when tested at the time of the
competition, failed to meet the minimum level in either
It is, in the Board's opinion, both appropriate and
relevant for candidates to undergo a practical test of
skills which are best demonstrated in that way, at the
15
'J ~-~; ~I
,
time of the competition, whether or not they are holders
of a certificate of competency in the special area being
evaluated That is not to say that the fact that the
candidate has achieved the level of comp~tency required
to gain a certificate in the past should .be ignored when
a final decision is being arrived at Skills such as
these, if not too far out of date, are normally
retrievable with renewed usage
The Board has considered the evidence, the c;learly set out
arguments of the parties, and its findings based on these It has
also consulted the cases to which it was referred It has
concluded that the process was flawed in the respects referred to
in the findings and 'that these flaws when considered in total are
of sufficent seriousness to result in the process being fatally
flawed The Board does not, in this case, agree with the argument
of the Employer that, the Incumbent should be confirmed in the
position on the basis that the evidence proves that a rerun would
probably not result in a change Nor does the Board believe that
this is a case in which the Grievor should be ,placed in the
position It is, therefore, ordering that the competition be
rerun, in spite of the time which has passed since the original
competition and the appointment of the Incumbent 'The Board also
recognizes that in the case of mo s t reruns there ~s an inherent
advantage to the incumbent which is unavoidable It is however,
possible to minimize this and certain of the conditions below are
imposed with this in mind
The Board orders that Competition AG-95A be rerun and that the
following conditions be complied with in the rerunning
1 The competition is to include only the Grievor and the
Incumbent
2 A new selection panel of 3 persons is to be struck One
member is to be from Human Resources, two out of the
three members are to be independent of the Regional
Family Support Plan Office The Panel is to be chaired
by one of the two independent members
3 The format is to be announced to candidates by July 1,
16
~} ~!f~::. I.~';'
i
1995
4 The typing test is to be held prior to July 7, 1995, and
if both candidates meet the minimum requirement, the
competition is to be run by August 1, 1995
5 The testing and interview should test the skills and
abilities outlined in the job specification and the
posting, but should not be specific to the position
6 If the competition continues past the typing stage,
personnel files are to be reviewed by the panel members
7 If the competition continues past the typing stage,
references are to be checked by the panel members
8 The decision should be rendered by September 1, 1995
The Board wi 11 remain seized of this matter to assist the
parties, should its assistance be required
Dated atcd::;4 --:::> ~~-<
this 9th day of June, 1995
~ ~-
-
c; Carruthers, Member
\
A(l ~ ~
D M Clark, Member
17
--~.-