Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1228CORDILEONE_JAMIESO ONrARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE , SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100. TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1 180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1 GSB # 1228/94, 1255/94 OPSEU # 94F276, 94F275 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Cordileone/Jamieson) Grievor - and - the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE B Fisher Vice-Chair FOR THE M McFadden UNION Counsel Koskie & Minsky Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE M MacKinnon GREIVOR Counsel Cordi leone Marc L Bode Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE L Marvy EMPLOYER Counsel Legal Services Branch Management Board Secretariat FOR THE S McGregor THIRD PARTY HEARING January 20, 1997 - 2 - This is a competition case One Grievor, Ms Jamieson, has more seniority than the Mr Steve McGregor, the incumbent, while the other Grievor, Ms Cordileone, has less seniority than the incumbent. The Union is not asking for the Board to award either of the Grievors the position, rather they are only asking for a rerun The position in question is that of Purchasing Agent. The Employer admitted that both Grievors met the qualifications of the job, only that Ms Jamieson was not relatively equal in terms of the relevant qualifications and ability as compared to the incumbent, nor that Ms. Cordileone was demonstrably better qualified or able than the incumbent. In this case, each of the three individuals who applied for the position had remarkably similar backgrounds in that they all had ~ . The same Community College course on the subject of purchasing . Similar developmental assignments at the workplace in the position of Purchasing Agent. . Similar performance appraisal ratings . Similar, although certainly not identical, experience in purchasing functions The real problem here was the scoring system used by the three members on the Selection Panel The panel quite properly set up six job related cnteria which were - 3 - evaluated in the interview process and through the written exam They each evaluated the candidates individually, thereby avoiding the problems inherent in a consensus scoring system (see Bent 1733/86, Vice Chair Fisher) However the problem was in the scoring system itself Rather than using a set of common terms to evaluate (as in Meets Qualifications, Does not Meet Qualifications or Exceeds Qualifications or a scoring of 1 to 5) the evaluators used what they termed "a narrative evaluation" In other words, each evaluator wrote a narrative summary of his or her evaluation of each of the six criteria for each candidate However, because they each used different words to express their opinions, it is virtually impossible to determine the overall evaluation of each candidate and absolutely impossible to determine the relative difference in the evaluations between the candidates A brief review of the terminology used by the evaluators reveals that at various times a candidate was judged to - . Meets the criteria . Meets basic criteria . Minimally meets criteria . Fully meets the criteria . Exceeds the critena . Does not meet the criteria . Partially meets the criteria . Meets to exceeds the criteria - 4 - It is impossible for this Board to determine how the Selection Panel could have ever properly have . First, properly determine the relative ranking of the candidates, and . Second, once the relative ranking was determined, to ascertain issues of relative equality as required by Article 4 3 1 of the Collective Agreement. I, therefore, have no hesitation in determining that this "narrative evaluation" is a serious defect in the competition process However the inquiry does not end there, because if the Employer can show that even if the defect was corrected, the incumbent would still win, then a rerun should not be ordered (see Bent 1733/86, Vice Chair Fisher) The problem here is that only one of the evaluators even converted her narrative evaluation into a numerical score It is -- neither feasible nor appropriate for this Board to try to guess what different people meant when they used different terminology The rule in Bent is only to be used when the defect is easily corrected (like ignoring an inappropriate question and adjusting the score accordingly) It is not to be used when to try to predict the outcome absent the procedural defects would amount to mere speculation or guesswork. The grievance, therefor, is allowed A rerun of the competition is to held subject to the following restrictions - 5 - 1 The evaluators are to use a numerical scoring system based on identical scoring criteria. Records are to be kept of each evaluator's scoring and how those scores were compared to each other in arriving at the panel's decision 2 A different selection panel is to be used consisting of individuals who do not presently work at the same work site as the Grievors and the incumbent. That new panel is not to use or view any of the contents of the previous competition file, except for the job posting and the application forms and resumes of the two Grievors and the incumbent. 3 The interview questions and written questions are to be designed so that no advantage is to be given to the incumbent, however they can take into account that each of the candidates has had a developmental assignment in ~ the job 4 All questions are to be based on how the job existed in 1994, which was the time of the competition 5 The competition is to be limited to the two Grievors and the incumbent. - 6 - 6 All candidates are to be provided before the competition with copies of all policies, statutes or regulations that may be tested upon 7 Only the existing application forms and existing resumes are to be used 8 Nothing which occurred since May 10, 1994 can be used in the decision, for instance performance reviews and discipline 9 I retain jurisdiction with respect any issues arising from the implementation of this award as well as any grievance that may arise out of the outcome of the rerun 10 If either of the Grievors win the rerun, she is to be compensated accordingly, including interest. ~ Dated at Toronto this 12TH day of June, 1997 ""\ / ,/ (/ / Fisher v ~ice Chair