Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1787.Rovisan-Pozega.05-10-18 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# 2004-1787 UNION# 2004-0234-0449 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (RovIsan-Pozega) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Manlyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Rena Khan Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING October 6 2005 2 DeCISIon The partIes have agreed to an expedIted medIatIOn-arbItratIOn process to determIne gnevances at the Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex and Vamer Centre for Women. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at medIatIOn, faIlIng whIch, they have agreed to utIlIze an expedIted arbItratIOn process In preparatIOn, each party provIdes the Vice-Chair wIth wntten submIssIOns one week pnor to the heanng. Those submIssIOns Include a statement of the facts, as well as the argument (supported by any authontIes) on whIch each party Intends to rely At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the Vice-Chair may request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent to eIther party or to the Vice-Chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through 'regular' arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts pnor to and at the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adjudIcatIOn process In thIS case, the gnevance asserts that the employer IS In vIOlatIOn of the collectIve agreement by faIlIng to award a posItIOn of Accounts Payable Clerk to the gnevor Milka ROVIsan-Pozega (competItIOn number CS-I073-03) Although two posItIOns were vacant, the gnevor acknowledges that a full-tIme classIfied applIcant was properly successful In obtaInIng one of the posItIOns The gnevor had expenence In the area. She also had more unclassIfied servIce than the successful candIdate The umon asserted that the employer had commented on her mantal status dunng the IntervIew In vIOlatIOn of the Human RIghts Code and had advIsed her that there was a problem wIth her references whIch she demes The gnevor attended the heanng and made addItIOnal assertIOns She asserted that marks were Improperly deducted from her scores for USIng pencIl when her computer was not set up properly She also asserted that the successful candIdate had been prevIOusly employed by the Supenntendent, ImplYIng that the IndIVIdual had receIved specIal treatment. 3 AccordIng to the gnevor the comment regardIng her mantal status came In the form of congratulatIOns The employer noted that there had been some confusIOn as the applIcatIOn had been made under a dIfferent surname and some clanficatIOn and venficatIOn was reqUIred. In eIther event I am not satIsfied that the comments amount to a breach of the Code Mantal status was not taken Into account In any way In determInIng the outcome of the competItIOn. I have revIewed the competItIOn file and the eVIdence and submIssIOns of the partIes The employer IS entItled to and IS reqUIred to utIlIze the competItIve process In assessIng candIdates The gnevor's results In the competItIOn mayor may not reflect her actual abIlItIes However I am unable to conclude that the IntervIew process was Inappropnate or lackIng. It can be the case that knowledge of, and sUItabIlIty for a posItIOn are not well commumcated by someone unfamIlIar wIth, or uncomfortable In an IntervIew and testIng process Even assumIng that the gnevor was told that there was a problem wIth her references, It IS clear from the competItIOn file that the employer dId not contact the gnevor's references Her applIcatIOn dId not proceed to that stage In the competItIOn as she scored fifth out of sIxth In the selectIOn process, compnsed of a wntten and oral component. If one were to add marks deducted for the use of pencIl, the gnevor's marks would stIll fall sIgmficantly below those of the successful candIdate There IS no eVIdence that the employer favoured the successful candIdate for Improper reasons It IS apparent that delay In provIdIng the gnevor wIth InformatIOn, IncludIng her relatIve scores In the competItIOn has contnbuted to her VIew that the competItIOn was mIshandled. However on the basIs of the eVIdence I am not satIsfied that the selectIOn process was In any way Improper ThIS gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 18th day of October 2005