HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1441.Persaud.02-12-05 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 1441/00 0044/01 0045/01 0188/01 0271/01
UNION# 01A057 01A402,01A403 01A404 01A405 01A406 01A407
01A408 01A409 01A410 01A411 01A468 01A469 01A568 01A59
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Persaud) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Owen V Gray Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION John BrewIn
Ryder Wnght Blair & Doyle
Bamsters and SOlICItorS
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mary Pat Moore
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING December 3 2002
2
DECISION
[1] The partIes settled several gnevances, mcludmg a competItIOn gnevance, on terms
recorded m Mmutes of Settlement dated March 4, 2002
[2] Paragraph 2 of those Mmutes of Settlement provIded that the gnevor would be
awarded a partIcular temporary posItIOn on certam terms, "subJect to obtammg at least 70%
on a test of her skIll at usmg the computer to do a spreadsheet exerCIse on the Excel program
sImIlar to the thIrd wntten questIOn m the ongmal competItIOn." Such a test was to be gIven
wIthm 10 days The gnevor was gIVen a test wIthm that tIme She dId not obtam 70% on It.
The umon requested a hearmg to deal wIth ItS assertIOn that the test gIven was not "sImIlar to
the thIrd wntten questIOn m the ongmal competItIOn." When that hearmg convened, I was
asked to deal wIth the Issue m an expedIted manner
[3] Havmg heard the partIes' descnptIOns of and submIssIOns about the test and the
CIrcumstances m whIch It had been admmIstered, for reasons gIVen orally at hearmg I
concluded that that test had not been "sImIlar to the thIrd wntten questIOn m the ongmal
competItIOn", and that I could not determme from the results of that test whether the gnevor
would have achIeved the reqUIred mark If the test had been "sImIlar" Havmg addressed the
ways m whIch the test was not "sImIlar," I dIrected that a "sImIlar" test now be admmIstered.
The outcome of thIS further test wIll determme what else, If anythmg, must be done to gIve
effect to the ongmal terms of the Mmutes of Settlement and remedy ItS breach. That decIsIOn
and those dIrectIOns are hereby confirmed
[4] After bemg advIsed of my decIsIOn, the partIes came to agreement on the followmg wIth
respect to thIS further test.
(1) As provIded m paragraph 2(1) of the mmutes of settlement, the test IS to be "sImIlar to
the thIrd wntten questIOn m the ongmal competItIOn", and the passmg mark IS to be
70%
(2) The test wIll be provIded to me m advance for approval as to whether It IS "SImIlar to the
thIrd wntten questIOn m the ongmal competItIOn." That determmatIOn IS to be made
3
wIthout eIther counsel makmg submIssIOns on the matter, and wIthout revealmg the
contents of the proposed test to the umon or anyone on ItS behalf or to eIther counsel.
(3) The test wIll be gIven no sooner than 5 workmg days and no less than 10 workmg days
after I approve the test
(4) A umon representatIve wIll be entItled to observe the test on the followmg terms WhIle
the gnevor IS performmg the test, the representatIve wIll walt outsIde the office m whIch
she does that The representatIve may be present m that office before the gnevor begms
the exerCIse to observe the opemng of the test file from the dIsk provIded, wIll observe the
tIme at the begmnmg and at the end of the test, and may be present m the office agam
when the gnevor saves her results to the dIsk provIded.
(5) I remam seIsed wIth any outstandmg or subsequent Issue concermng the ImplementatIOn
and mterpretatIOn of the Mmutes of Settlement and the dIrectIOns recIted m thIS order
Dated at Toronto thIS 5th day of December 2002