Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1856.Baker.05-10-03 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# 2004-1856 UNION# OLB464/04 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano LIqUor Boards Employees' Umon (Baker) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (LIqUor Control Board of Ontano) Employer BEFORE Michael V Watters Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION E A. SchIrru Koskie Minsky LLP BarrIsters & SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER M. Horvat OgIlvy Renault LLP BarrIsters & SOlICItorS HEARING February 15 and July 8 2005 2 DeCISIon ThIS proceedIng anses as a consequence of the Employer's decIsIOn to not award the gnevor Mr Timothy Baker the full-tIme posItIOn of QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve at the RetaIl ServIce Centre In London, Ontano The posItIOn, Instead, was awarded to Mr Tim Goulden. Mr Goulden attended the heanngs and was offered the full opportumty to partIcIpate In same He declIned thIS opportumty and was content to let the Employer defend the approach used In the selectIOn process Mr Goulden was not called as a wItness In thIS case The relevant provIsIOn of the collectIve agreement IS artIcle 21 5(a) whIch reads Where employees are beIng consIdered for promotIOn, semonty wIll be the determInIng factor provIded the employee IS qualIfied to perform the work. The gnevor and Mr Goulden both have a semonty date of January 1 2003 The gnevor however IS treated as the more semor employee by vIrtue of hIm havIng a lower employee number The Job PostIng dated Apnl 16 2004 descnbes the posItIOn of QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve as follows "Under the general supervISIOn of the Manager QualIty ServIces, Head Office the posItIOn IS responsIble for the folloWIng dutIes ensure suspect products are held In the warehouse, corrected, returned, destroyed, or released for dIstnbutIOn In a tImely manner co-ordInate movement of Inventory to and from thIrd party warehouses, prepare documentatIOn to facIlItate ShIppIng and reCeIVIng; confirm quantItIes, reVIew any correctIve work performed, IdentIfy Isolate and report defectIve and non-complIant product; ImtIate product holds, ImtIate all functIOns assOCIated wIth Return/DestructIOn AuthonzatIOns and IQAR Inventory Adjustment; ImtIate actIOns to respond to warehouse InSpectIOn and correctIve actIOn requests develop and document new procedures/processes related to the QualIty Control functIOn, Inspect, spot-check, and momtor product; ImtIate ShIppIng contaIner reVIews on IncomIng products receIved at the facIlIty per establIshed standard operatIng procedures, ensure proper stock rotatIOn of date sensItIve products, IdentIfy age of product upon receIpt of shIpments and Interpret product date code InformatIOn, process breakage and salvage operatIOns In accordance wIth establIshed procedures wIthIn the facIlIty Perform other dutIes as assIgned." The Job PostIng lIsted the folloWIng qualIficatIOns for the posItIOn 3 "Able to work under mImmal supervIsIOn, thIS posItIOn reqUIres product qualIty and control expenence excellent knowledge of LOgIStIC RetaIl Support Centres Internal operatIOns, processes, and controls, supenor wntten and verbal com mum catIOn skIlls excellent orgamzatIOnal, Interpersonal, leadershIp analytIcal, and problem-solVIng skIlls strong product knowledge obtaIned through the completIOn of LCBO Product Knowledge Correspondence Course Level I wIth a commItment to obtaInIng Level II and III or eqUIvalent; compellIng customer servIce skIlls demonstrated knowledge of LCBO PackagIng Standards and GUIdelInes for ChemIcal AnalysIs and CALJ Product IdentIfi catIon Standards, excellent knowledge and abIlIty to apply maInframe and personal computer applIcatIOns, 1 e Access, Excel, Word, Outlook, WCSS etc demonstrated understandIng of ISO 9001 2000 standards, physIcal abIlIty to lIft and carry cases weIghIng up to 60 lbs " ProspectIve applIcants for the pOSItIOn were also asked to note the folloWIng . "ApplIcants wIll be conSIdered In the folloWIng order ElIgIble PFT employees, followed by Seasonal and Casual employees at the London RetaIl ServIce Centre . CandIdates must meet the folloWIng mImmum cntena In order to (be) gIven further conSIderatIOn (a) past satIsfactory dIscIplIne and attendance record, (b) past satIsfactory work record. . CandIdates wIll be selected for assessment based on theIr resume detaIlIng background and expenence In relatIOn to cntena as descnbed In qualIfi catIons . CandIdate's assessment may Include an IntervIew pOSSIble job-related testIng, work performance, supervIsor's evaluatIOn, and attendance . ThIS pOSItIOn IS In the Sales & MarketIng DIvISIOn, It IS not entItled to warehouse work regularly performed by LOgIStIC employees" The gnevor was the sole wItness called to present eVIdence on behalf of the Umon. He commenced employment at the LCBO In the London Warehouse In June, 2002 as a fixed term employee He became a casual employee at the end of August, 2002 The gnevor started workIng In the ShIppIng Department as a seasonal employee as of December 2002 He was workIng In thIS department as of the date of the job postIng In Apnl, 2004 I note that Mr Goulden was also a seasonal employee at that pOInt In tIme EVIdence for the Employer was presented by Mr Leonard Franssen, Ms Lon Thorpe and Mr Mike Moody Mr Franssen IS the Manager of QualIty ServIces In the QualIty Assurance 4 Department. He works out of the Employer's Head Office In Toronto Ontano The person In the posItIOn here In Issue reports to Mr Franssen. Mr Franssen has worked In the field of QualIty Control, both as a bargaInIng umt member and as management, SInce 1989 Ms Thorpe serves as a Human Resources AdvIsor for the Western RegIOn. In thIS capacIty she IS Involved In approXImately five (5) selectIOn processes each year She does not, generally become Involved In matters relatIng to the London Warehouse In thIS Instance, however Ms Thorpe was asked to fill-In on the selectIOn panel for one (1) of her colleagues In the Human Resources Department at the RegIOnal Office Mr Moody IS the Manager of OperatIOns In respect of the afternoon ShIft at the London Warehouse He has been In thIS pOSItIOn for over a year-and-a-half He was preVIOusly a SupervIsor and, before that, a member of the bargaInIng umt. He has been WIth the LCBO for some twenty-five (25) years At the tIme matenal to thIS dIspute, Mr Moody was the dIrect SupervIsor of both the gnevor and Mr Goulden. He had also worked WIth both employees whIle he was a member of the bargaInIng umt. Mr Franssen advIsed that the pOSItIOn of QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve was a new pOSItIOn at the tIme of the postIng. He noted that whIle the person selected would perform the reqUIred dutIes WIthIn the LOgIStICS DIVISIOn at the London Warehouse, he or she would report dIrectly to hIm In Toronto The IndIVIdual would also be expected to work closely WIth other QualIty ServIces staff at Head Office WIth respect to planmng and schedulIng actIvItIes related to the qualIty control functIOn at the above-mentIOned Warehouse Mr Franssen observed that the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve IS the only qualIty control pOSItIOn at the Warehouse He descnbed the pOSItIOn as "our eyes In the field." In thIS regard, Mr Franssen stated that, "LOgIStICS' mandate IS mOVIng out Inventory to the Stores, our duty IS to hold back Inventory that IS not saleable" Mr Franssen testIfied that the substance of the Job PostIng was premIsed on the POSItIOn DescnptIOn for the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve He reVIewed thIS latter document 5 dunng the course of hIS eVIdence After consIdenng Mr Franssen's eVIdence, In conjUnctIOn wIth a companson of the Job PostIng and the PosItIOn DescnptIOn, I accept that the two (2) documents are consIstent WIth respect to the dutIes of the job and the qualIficatIOns reqUIred to perform same The PosItIOn DescnptIOn IS appended to the body of thIS Award. As stated on the Job PostIng, applIcants for the posItIOn were reqUIred to submIt theIr resumes to Human Resource ServIces at the LCBO Western RegIOnal Office by the cloSIng date of Apnl 29 2004 The gnevor and Mr Goulden both satIsfied thIS reqUIrement. The gnevor's resume lIsted the dutIes he had prevIOusly performed at the London Warehouse It also outlIned the dutIes he had performed for two (2) pnor employers, Contran Manufactunng and McDonald Mall ServIce Mr Goulden's resume sImIlarly descnbed hIS employment hIStOry wIth the LCBO and wIth three (3) pnor employers, No-Sag Spnng Co AudIO Video FIle, and Future Shop Mr Franssen testIfied that he revIewed both resumes ThIS reVIew led hIm to conclude that the gnevor at best, had "very mImmal, margInal qualIficatIOns" for the pOSItIOn. In contrast, Mr Franssen was left WIth the ImpreSSIOn that Mr Goulden's pnor expenence constItuted a better match VIS-a.-VIS the dutIes of, and qualIficatIOns for the posted pOSItIOn. It IS unnecessary to address the content of the resumes In further detaIl The documents were clearly used as a screemng deVIce to determIne whIch of the applIcants would be "selected for assessment." NeIther the gnevor nor Mr Goulden were excluded from the process by vIrtue of the resumes Rather they were subjected to the selectIOn process descnbed below AddItIOnally It IS clear from Mr Franssen's eVIdence that the resumes were not factored Into the ultImate assessment of the respectIve applIcants In hIS words, the fact that Mr Goulden's resume was better than the gnevor's "dId not come Into play" There were four (4) applIcants for the posted pOSItIOn, these beIng the gnevor Mr Goulden, Mr DaVId Groke, and Ms Joanne Tingle All of the applIcants were IntervIewed on June 11 2004 by a selectIOn panel compnsed of Mr Franssen, Ms Thorpe, and Mr Greg 6 Stanley Mr Stanley IS another SupervIsor at the London Warehouse He dId not testIfy In thIS proceedIng. A CandIdate RatIng Form was prepared for use by each panellIst at the IntervIew The mne (9) page Form set out the folloWIng questIOns, whIch were to be answered by the applIcants 1 Descnbe any computer expenence that you have acqUIred that qualIfies you for thIS posItIOn. Include applIcatIOns used, skIll level, frequency of use, and traInIng; 2 Descnbe any expenence you have In each of the folloWIng areas, whIch you feel qualIfies you for thIS posItIOn (i) wntten and verbal commumcatIOn skIlls, (iI) teamwork and leadershIp skIlls, (ill) orgamzatIOnal, analytIcal, and problem-solvIng; (iv) Interpersonal, negotIatIOn skIlls, and customer servIce skIlls, 3 Descnbe any expenence, traInIng or knowledge that you have acqUIred that qualIfies you for thIS posItIOn. Supplementary If reqUIred What expenence do you have wIth workplace safety? 4 In summary what reqUIrements are detaIled In the LCBO PackagIng Standards? In summary what reqUIrements are detaIled In the CALJ Product IdentIficatIOn Standards? 5 What codes or other InfOrmatIOn IS avaIlable on ShIppIng contaIners or sellIng umts that would assIst warehouse staff In IdentIfYIng the age of product? 6 You have receIved an e-maIl from QualIty Control requestIng a speCIfic Lot Number of a product beIng placed In physIcal hold. Descnbe the steps you would take to comply and respond to thIS request; 7 An agent telephones you and IS Irate and very demandIng. A product IS In hold pendIng correctIve actIOn and the agent would lIke to expedIte ItS release How would you handle the call? 8 Bnefly descnbe the fundamental pnncIples and key system elements ofISO 9001 2000 qualIty management system PanellIsts were then Instructed to evaluate the candIdate's commumcatIOn skIlls accordIng to the folloWIng cntena. express theIr thoughts clearly present themselves In a posItIve manner lIsten Intently demonstrate Interest/enthusIasm and maIntaIn eye contact; use appropnate busIness language In a professIOnal manner aVOId USIng slang or other unprofessIOnal language? 7 The above questIOns were prepared by Mr Franssen wIth the assIstance of a representatIve from Human Resources Mr Franssen advIsed that these questIOns were prevIOusly used In a postIng for the same posItIOn In Toronto For seven (7) of the eIght (8) questIOns, panellIsts were provIded wIth RatIng Cntena on the CandIdate RatIng Form Generally the cntena provIded them wIth InfOrmatIOn that would be Included In an appropnate answer There was also an area on the Form for the panellIsts to make notes of the candIdate's response Lastly there was a spot on the Form for panellIsts to mark a score out of ten (10) for each of the eIght (8) questIOns and the assessment of commumcatIOn skIlls To assIst WIth the evaluatIOn process, the folloWIng ratIng scheme was provIded on the Form Excellent 10-9 Good 8-7 Fair 6-5 and Poor 4-0 An applIcant's IntervIew performance was assessed out of a total of mnety (90) possIble marks ApplIcants were asked the above questIOns by the panellIsts on an alternatIng basIs Each panel member recorded the responses on the CandIdate RatIng Form and assIgned a score out of ten (10) for each questIOn. At the conclUSIOn of each IntervIew the panel members totalled theIr scores They then engaged In a group dIscussIOn about the respectIve scores gIven to the applIcant. Mr Franssen testIfied that the panel looked at the marks assIgned for each questIOn, and at the overall score, to determIne If there were any sIgmficant dIscrepancIes He made the folloWIng comment about thIS part of the process "we wanted to ensure what we recorded was accurate, that we all heard the same thIngs, and that our assessment was based on what we heard." Mr Franssen stated that thIS was an opportumty for each panel member to lIsten to the comments of theIr colleagues, and to determIne whether he or she had mIssed anythIng. He acknowledged that an applIcant's score could be adjusted as a consequence He asserted that "no one was forced to change theIr marks" and that, based on the dIscuSSIOn, a panellIst mIght opt to "voluntanly" adjust a mark. Mr Franssen demed, however that the post-IntervIew dIscuSSIOn was desIgned to arnve at one (1) overall, or consensus, score Ms Thorpe also testIfied that the 8 purpose of the exerCIse was not to arrIve at a consensus score She added that these dIscussIOns lIkely Included a consIderatIOn as to whether each applIcant had the abIlIty and qualIficatIOns to perform the work. The scores assIgned by the panel In respect of the IntervIew of the gnevor and Mr Goulden may be summanzed as follows Gnevor Mr. Goulden Mr Franssen 33 47 - - 90 90 Ms Thorpe 37 48 - - 90 90 Mr Stanley 32 54 - - 90 90 Overall average 378% 55.2% (as a percentage) At the heanng, a consIderable amount of eVIdence was adduced wIth respect to the folloWIng matters (i) the scores that Mr Franssen and Ms Thorpe awarded for each questIOn and theIr reasons for dOIng so (iI) a companson of the marks they gave to the gnevor and Mr Goulden, and (ill) the vanance In theIr sconng of certaIn questIOns It IS unnecessary to reproduce all of thIS eVIdence In the body of thIS Award. In my judgment, the dIfferences In theIr sconng, for the most part, sImply reflects what routInely occurs when applIcants are assessed by a selectIOn panel compnsed of three (3) members UltImately I am unable to find that the vanance In the sconng IS determInatIve of the Instant dIspute I note from the eVIdence that Ms Thorpe adjusted her sconng of the gnevor downwards by a total of eIght (8) marks across four (4) questIOns Ms Thorpe testIfied that she was unable to 9 recall why the changes were made She suggested that one (1) of the changes mIght have reflected a numencal error on her part. She also agreed, In cross-eXamInatIOn, that It was possIble the sconng was changed as a result of the post-IntervIew dIscUSSIOn. In thIS regard, Ms Thorpe speculated that she may have, ImtIally been overly generous In her markIng, and may have gIven credIt for somethIng that dId not warrant a mark. Ms Thorpe acknowledged that she dId not make any changes In the scores she assIgned to Mr Goulden. Before turmng to the next component of the selectIOn process, I wIsh to state my conclUSIOns wIth respect to three (3) Issues FIrst, I am satIsfied that the questIOns asked In the IntervIews were reasonably related to the dutIes and responsIbIlItIes of the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve posItIOn. Second, I accept that the panel dId not resort to consensus sconng. I have been persuaded that the post-IntervIew dIscussIOn around each applIcant was Intended to IdentIfy any matenal dIscrepancIes In the sconng and to ensure that there was a solId basIs for the actual marks gIven. Lastly there IS InSUffiCIent eVIdence to establIsh that Ms Thorpe adjusted the gnevor's scores downward In order to prejUdICe hIS applIcatIOn and/or to promote Mr Goulden's applIcatIOn. It would have been helpful, however If Ms Thorpe had made a notatIOn on the CandIdate RatIng Form to explaIn or clanfy the reason for any changes ImmedIately folloWIng the IntervIews, the applIcants were reqUIred to take two (2) wntten tests, these beIng a Product IdentIficatIOn and PackagIng Standards Test and a Product Knowledge Test. The former test was out of a total of forty (40) marks, whIle the latter was out of twenty-five (25) marks Both tests were prepared by Mr Franssen. The Product IdentIficatIOn and PackagIng Standards Test was compnsed of seven (7) questIOns The questIOns may be summanzed as follows 1 Ten (10) acronyms that appear on LCBO or CALJ packagIng standards were lIsted. ApplIcants were asked If the defimtIOn beSIde the acronym was true or false 10 2 ApplIcants were provIded wIth eleven (11) statements relatIng to ShIppIng contaIners used to package consumer sellIng umts shIpped to the LCBO and were asked If each statement was true or false 3 ApplIcants were asked to lIst five (5) markIngs/declaratIOns that must appear on the label of a bottle of WIne sold by the LCBO 4 ApplIcants were asked to descnbe two (2) acceptable formats for product date codes that must be shown on beer and bag-In-box products and to gIve an example of each, 5 ApplIcants were gIven a twelve (12) dIgIt UPC barcode and were asked to match each of the four (4) sets of numbers to a label 6 ApplIcants were asked to descnbe four (4) dIfferent types of tamper-evIdent closures that may be used for products sold by the LCBO 7 ApplIcants were asked to name the type of SCC-14 bar code depIcted on an example, whIch was proVIded. Mr Franssen testIfied that In prepanng thIS test, he focused on InfOrmatIOn he thought would be Important for a person In the posted posItIOn to have knowledge of He added that It was hIS way of testIng whether the applIcants had the "demonstrated knowledge" reqUIred by the postIng. The gnevor scored fifteen (15) out of forty (40) marks on the Product IdentIficatIOn and PackagIng Standards Test. Mr Goulden's score was twelve (12) out of forty (40) Mr Franssen agreed, In cross-eXamInatIOn, that neIther applIcant receIved a passIng grade of fifty percent (50%) on thIS test. The Product Knowledge Test consIsted of a senes of twenty-five (25) questIOns The applIcants were proVIded wIth four (4) answers and were asked to cIrcle the correct one Mr Franssen repeated that the test was hIS way of gaugIng whether the applIcants possessed demonstrated knowledge In the area. The gnevor scored eIght (8) out of twenty-five (25) marks on the Product Knowledge Test. Mr Goulden's score was twelve (12) out of twenty-five (25) AgaIn, Mr Franssen acknowledged that neIther applIcant passed the test. He expressed the OpInIOn, however that It was not fatal that they both faIled to achIeve fifty percent (50%) of the 11 allotted marks on both tests In hIS VIew the tests were sImply a one-thIrd (t rd) part of the selectIOn process I note, at thIS Juncture, that neIther the gnevor nor the Umon challenged the appropnateness of the questIOns asked on the tests After the IntervIews and the tests were completed, Mr Franssen asked Ms Thorpe to perform a reference check for all of the applIcants Ms Thorpe, as a consequence, subsequently spoke to Mr Moody by telephone about both the gnevor and Mr Goulden. As preVIOusly mentIOned, Mr Moody was well acquaInted wIth both applIcants and was theIr dIrect SupervISor at the tIme Ms Thorpe utIlIzed an Employment Reference Check form to structure her dIscuSSIOn wIth Mr Moody The form IS desIgned and Intended to elIcIt the folloWIng InfOrmatIOn about an applIcant: (i) posItIOn held by applIcant and maIn responSIbIlItIes and/or major projects, (iI) strengths, (ill ) areas for Improvement; (iv) Interpersonal/commumcatIons skills (v) work habIts, IncludIng any problems expenenced wIth respect to dependabIlIty attendance, or performance on the Job and (VI) speCIfic InformatIOn relevant to the selectIOn cntena. Ms Thorpe solIcIted Mr Moody's Input on these Items and recorded hIS answers In respect of the gnevor and Mr Goulden on separate Employment Reference Check forms She also asked Mr Moody If he would recommend the gnevor and Mr Goulden for the posItIOn In Issue Lastly Mr Moody was asked to proVIde an overall ratIng for each applIcant. The Employment Reference Check form contaInS the folloWIng optIOns 1 Excellent; 2 Very Good, 3 SatIsfactory 4 ReqUIres Development; and 5 UnsatIsfactory Ms Thorpe reVIewed all of these optIOns wIth Mr Moody pnor to hIS selectIOn of the appropnate ratIng. 12 Mr Moody testIfied that he had seen the Job PostIng for the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve, but dId not reVIew It In conjUnctIOn wIth hIS Involvement In the selectIOn process It was hIS eVIdence, however that he met wIth Mr Franssen about a month pnor to the postIng and that Mr Franssen then told hIm what he was lookIng for In the posItIOn. Mr Moody explaIned that he already had some famIlIanty wIth the type of work to be performed In the new posItIOn, as he had preVIOusly performed some of the reqUIred tasks Mr Moody was also aware, at the tIme of the reference that the posItIOn would report to Head Office and not to hIm, and that the occupant In the pOSItIOn would have to work Independently Mr Moody's eVIdence as to the InformatIOn he commumcated to Ms Thorpe about the gnevor may be summanzed as follows (i) he descnbed what the gnevor was dOIng on the afternoon ShIft as a ShIppIng Clerk; (iI) he IdentIfied the gnevor's strengths as "punctual-excellent attendance-not afraid to do thIngs-wIll look for work when done other thIngs" (ill ) he noted the folloWIng In terms of areas for Improvement "computer skIlls- not the best; deCISIOn makIng-would prefer to be gUIded." At the heanng, Mr Moody testIfied that thIS was a concern because the gnevor was not InclIned to show ImtIatIve or assume responSIbIlIty for makIng deCISIOns, (iv) he descnbed the gnevor's Interpersonal/commumcatIOn skIlls as follows "shy sIde doesn't lIke confrontatIOn,-wIlI say one thIng to me and dIfferent to other to aVOId, qUIet." At the heanng, Mr Moody expressed the OpInIOn that the gnevor was "more of a follower than a leader" It was hIS observatIOn that the gnevor lIked to get dIrectIOn from co-workers He VIewed thIS as sIgmficant, as the person In the posted pOSItIOn IS reqUIred to work Independently and to make theIr own deCISIOns WIth lIttle or no supervISIOn, (V) he advIsed that he had not expenenced any problems WIth the gnevor In respect of dependabIlIty attendance, or performance on the job He added, "sometImes stress when learmng-very partIcular" (VI) when asked If the gnevor could work alone Mr Moody advIsed Ms Thorpe that he thought the gnevor could do so but that he would sometImes "wonder when bored" ( Vll ) when asked If he would recommend the gnevor he advIsed Ms Thorpe as follows "If my chOIce, gIve an opportumty but not one-hundred percent 13 (100%) " At the heanng, Mr Moody testIfied that the gnevor would not have been hIS first chOIce but, rather would have been hIS second chOIce from amongst the four (4) applIcants It IS clear that he thought Mr Goulden was the "better" candIdate for the pOSItIOn, and ( V111 ) he gave the gnevor an overall ratIng of "3-SatIsfactory " At the heanng, Mr Moody testIfied that the gnevor could probably have performed "certaIn aspects" of the job of QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve at the tIme of the Job PostIng. By thIS, he meant that the gnevor was capable of performIng those general dutIes common to all employees workIng In the Warehouse Mr Moody testIfied, however that he dId not belIeve the gnevor would then have been able to perform the "more specIfic aspects of the job" such as aSSIstIng WIth the preparatIOn of an annual budget, planmng, and pnontIZIng work actIvItIes, and lIaisIng effectIvely WIth QualIty Control LOgIStICS and Head Office Mr Moody doubted whether the gnevor could work under mImmal supervISIOn. It was hIS assessment that the gnevor reqUIred on-gOIng supervISIOn. Mr Moody also expressed the OpInIOn that the gnevor lacked the leadershIp skIlls reqUIred In the pOSItIOn. Further he was not conVInced that the gnevor had the reqUIsIte knowledge of the LogIstIcal RetaIl Support Centre's Internal operatIOns, processes, and controls Mr Moody's eVIdence as to the InfOrmatIOn he commumcated to Ms Thorpe about Mr Goulden may be summanzed as follows (i) he descnbed the nature ofMr Goulden's job at the Warehouse (iI) he descnbed the strengths ofMr Goulden In the folloWIng terms "Independently-no supervISIOn, punctual, self-starter excellent computer functIOns, work extra to Improve" (ill ) he stated that he could not thInk of an area In need of Improvement; (iv) he descnbed Mr Goulden's Interpersonal/commumcatIOns skIlls as follows "excellent-both management and peers, concIse-askIng questIOns and answers, verbal and wntten" (v) he advIsed that he had not expenenced any problems WIth Mr Goulden In respect of dependabIlIty attendance, or performance on the job 14 (VI) he advIsed that Mr Goulden could work alone ( Vll ) when asked Ifhe would recommend Mr Goulden, he told Ms Thorpe that he would and that Mr Goulden would be hIS first chOIce and ( V111 ) he gave Mr Goulden an overall ratIng of "2-Very Good." In cross-eXamInatIOn, Mr Moody acknowledged that Mr Goulden would not be able "to jump In and do all aspects" of the job of QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve He expressed the OpInIOn, however that Mr Goulden could do more of the job than could the gnevor In thIS regard, he referenced telephone commumcatIOns, pnontIZIng work actIVItIes, planmng of the workday and movement and assessment of Inventory Mr Moody maIntaIned that In arnVIng at hIS overall ratIng ofMr Goulden, he dId not compare hIm to the gnevor He asserted, rather that he compared the gnevor to the qualIficatIOns of the job I note that Mr Moody's Involvement In the selectIOn process was lImIted to the references he provIded to Ms Thorpe Mr Franssen receIved the Employment Reference Check forms on or about June 15 2004 It was the substance of hIS eVIdence that he dId not attempt to Interpret, questIOn, or dIspute the data obtaIned from Mr Moody Mr Franssen acknowledged that the SatIsfactory ratIng gIven to the gnevor by Mr Moody represented "a pass," gIven that It was subsequently accorded a mark of five (5) out often (10) pursuant to a ratIng scale contaIned on the BargaInIng Umt SelectIOn Process CandIdate Results form, hereInafter referred to as "the Matnx." He observed, however that the threshold of fifty percent (50%) was used as a measure of qualIficatIOns across the selectIOn process as a whole, rather than for each dIStInCt component of the process The Employer In thIS Instance, elected to gIve equal weIghtIng to the three (3) components of the selectIOn process More speCIfically the scores gIven to an applIcant for the IntervIew the testIng, and the references-performance appraisal were each to account for thIrty- three percent (33%) of the final score For purposes of the assessment, scores for each of the 15 components were translated Into a percentage One (1) aspect of thIS converSIOn exerCIse ments mentIOn. As noted above the gnevor was accorded a mark of five (5) out of ten (10) for hIS overall ratIng of SatIsfactory Mr Goulden, In contrast, receIved a mark of seven-and-a-half (7- 1) out often (10) for hIS overall ratIng of Very Good. As a consequence, the gnevor was gIven a weIghted mark of sIxteen-and-a-half (16-1 ) for thIS part of the process, whIle Mr Goulden was credIted wIth a mark of twenty-four and three-quarters (24-i ) The final scores were as follows Mr Goulden 558% Mr Baker 404% Mr Groke 30 62 % Ms Tingle 18 18 % Mr Franssen testIfied that a score of fifty percent (50%) was used as the benchmark agaInst whIch to assess whether an applIcant was qualIfied for the job From hIS perspectIve, a score of fifty percent (50%) represented a pass and would demonstrate that an applIcant met the mImmum qualIficatIOns Mr Franssen reIterated that an applIcant dId not have to score well In all of the components of the selectIOn process He noted that a poor result In one (1) component could be made up by a better result In another component. He further advIsed that thIS method of selectIOn had been used In the earlIer postIng In Toronto UltImately the Employer concluded that the gnevor's total score of 40 4% meant that he was not qualIfied for the posItIOn In Issue, and that Mr Goulden's score of 55 8% IndIcated that he was qualIfied for the job As stated preVIOusly Mr Franssen acknowledged that both the gnevor and Mr Goulden faIled the Product IdentIficatIOn and PackagIng Standards Test and the Product Knowledge Test. He agreed that the Employer could, as a consequence have deemed no one to be qualIfied and reposted the job In a larger area. It was hIS eVIdence that, In thIS Instance, the Employer elected "to go wIth the candIdates who went through the process" I note that the Umon does not contest that decIsIOn In thIS proceedIng. 16 The gnevor testIfied about the dutIes he performed whIle workIng for the LCBO as a fixed term, casual, and seasonal employee In the penod June, 2002 to Apnl, 2004 These dutIes Included the folloWIng assembly of product; use of a forklIft to unload and load product; Breakage Room tasks such as cleamng and repackIng damaged product for subsequent return to the Store system, ShIppIng and reCeIVIng functIOns, whIch necessItated a working famIlIanty wIth bIlls ofladIng and K-52 forms, related computer work, and maIntenance It was the substance of the gnevor's eVIdence that he possessed the qualIficatIOns IdentIfied In the Job PostIng. His eVIdence In support of thIS assertIOn may be summanzed as follows (i) he prevIOusly worked under mImmal supervIsIOn whIle a SupervIsor WIth McDonald Mall ServIce The gnevor testIfied that In thIS former pOSItIOn, he supervIsed approxImately one hundred and fifty (150) employees across Ontano and that he was responSIble for payroll, bIllIng, schedulIng of employee hours, and sortIng of parcels for loadIng onto trucks for delIvery He further claimed that the pOSItIOn reqUIred developed orgamzatIOnal skIlls, (iI) he had started, but not fimshed, the LCBO's Product Knowledge Course The gnevor acknowledged that when he first saw the Job PostIng, he dId not know what the LCBO Product PackagIng Standards were He dId not make any Inqumes pnor to or at, the IntervIew to obtaIn InformatIOn about the Standards, (ill ) he maIntaIned that he was aware of LOgIStIC RetaIl Support Centre's Internal operatIOns, processes, and controls gIven hIS pnor expenence In the ShIppIng Department at the Warehouse (iv) the gnevor descnbed hIS wntten and verbal commumcatIOn skIlls as "pretty good." In a SImIlar veIn, he descnbed hIS Interpersonal and leadershIp skIlls as "excellent." He stated that he has a good relatIOnshIp WIth hIS colleagues at the LCBO (v) the gnevor testIfied that he has "a lIttle bIt of expenence" WIth problem solVIng; (VI) the gnevor advIsed that he used the computer and was famIlIar WIth the WCSS and ROC systems through hIS work In the ShIppIng Department. He stated that he has a personal computer at hIS reSIdence and that Excel, WordPerfect, and Outlook Express are loaded onto It. The gnevor acknowledged that he was "not too famIlIar" WIth ISO 9001 2000 standards (Vll) the gnevor stated that he has the physIcal abIlIty to lIft and carry cases weIghIng up to SIxty (60) pounds 17 The gnevor agreed that he was gIven the opportumty at the IntervIew to expand upon what was In hIS resume, IncludIng the extent of hIS computer skIlls He dId not recall havIng to be prompted by Ms Thorpe or others at the IntervIew but acknowledged that some promptIng may have been done I note, In thIS regard, that the CandIdate RatIng Forms completed by Ms Thorpe and Mr Franssen dIsclose that the gnevor was prompted to proVIde addItIOnal InfOrmatIOn In respect of certaIn of the questIOns The gnevor dIsagreed wIth Mr Moody's reference In two (2) respects Firstly he dIsputed Mr Moody's assessment that he prefers to be gUIded In terms of decIsIOn makIng. Secondly he demed that he seeks to aVOId confrontatIOn. The gnevor dId agree that he IS not "a computer gemus," when shown Mr Moody's comment about hIS computer skIlls not beIng the best. Counsel for the Umon stressed that artIcle 21 5 (a) of the collectIve agreement IS a suffiCIent abIlIty clause pursuant to whIch the gnevor was entItled to the posItIOn, as the more semor employee proVIded he was qualIfied to perform the work. He argued that the selectIOn process under such a clause must focus on whether an applIcant, and In thIS case the gnevor was able to perform the reqUIred work. From the perspectIve of the Umon, the process used In thIS case dId not seek to answer thIS questIOn. Rather It sought to Isolate the best candIdate, as If the artIcle proVIded for a competItIve process On the Umon's analYSIS, the process used by the Employer was flawed. I was urged to conclude that the gnevor would have been entItled to the job If artIcle 21 5 (a) had been properly admInIstered. Counsel for the Umon was cntIcal of all of the components of the selectIOn process used by the Employer In thIS case More specIfically he submItted that the IntervIews, the wntten tests, the reference checks, and the gradIng scheme dId not satIsfy the reqUIrements for a selectIOn process conducted under a suffiCIent abIlIty clause TurnIng first to the IntervIews, counsel noted that the panel members dId not ImtIally dISCUSS what they were lookIng for In the answer to each questIOn. Put another way they dId not 18 determIne what content In an answer would show that an applIcant met the mImmum threshold establIshed by the collectIve agreement. Counsel argued that, as a consequence, the panel assessed whIch applIcant offered the best answer Instead of whether the answer dIsclosed that the applIcant was qualIfied to perform the Job He suggested that each questIOn should have been assessed on a pass-fall basIs and that not all of the IntervIews should have been held at the same tIme Counsel submItted that the Employer should have commenced the process wIth an IntervIew of the most semor applIcant. If that applIcant faIled to meet the mImmum threshold In theIr answers, then the Employer could properly proceed to IntervIew the next most semor person. Counsel advanced the OpInIOn that by IntervIeWIng the applIcants one after another It was InevItable that the process would become a comparatIve exercIse Counsel for the Umon observed that the Employer ImtIally thought that the two (2) tests would be a good measure of an applIcant's knowledge of product and packagIng standards He suggested, however that they were treated as "a non-factor" after the gnevor and Mr Goulden faIled both tests In hIS Judgment, the tests were not then "treated as a senous qualIficatIOn that had to be met." Counsel emphaSIzed that the sconng on the tests, nevertheless, stIll amounted to one-thIrd ( 1. rd) of the overall evaluatIOn. He submItted, In effect, that the tests should not have been relIed on for the purpose of dIsqualIfYIng the gnevor Counsel was cntIcal of the Employer for altenng ItS reqUIrements "after the fact." He asserted that, as a consequence, the IntervIew ultImately became the determInIng factor In the selectIOn process Counsel for the Umon argued that the reference checks, as conducted, reflected the type of comparatIve analYSIS that would occur In the context of a competItIOn between applIcants He suggested that Mr Moody would have recommended the gnevor for the pOSItIOn, If the latter had been the only applIcant. Counsel stressed that Mr Moody preferred Mr Goulden for the Job as he was the "better candIdate" He submItted that thIS was not an appropnate approach to adopt 19 when admInIstenng a suffiCIent abIlIty clause, such as artIcle 21 5 (a) Counsel repeated hIS VIew that thIS part of the process should have started wIth an assessment of the most semor applIcant's abIlIty and qualIficatIOns Counsel for the Umon asserted that the Employer elected to use the Matnx format only after the scores became known. It seemed to be hIS suggestIOn that use of thIS format was Intended to benefit Mr Goulden and to undermIne the gnevor's semonty nghts Counsel argued that the use of the Matnx system, as descnbed earlIer reflected "a quantItatIve approach," rather than an assessment as to whether applIcants satIsfied the mImmum standard of beIng qualIfied. By way of example, he noted that the reference check ratIngs gIven to the gnevor and Mr Goulden of "SatIsfactory" and "Very Good," respectIvely meant that they both passed thIS part of the process Counsel stressed, however that the gnevor receIved only five (5) marks out often (10), whIle Mr Goulden receIved seven-and-a-half (7 + ) marks Counsel asserted that, as both applIcants passed the reference check, they should each have been accorded a mark of ten (10) out of ten (10) If that had been done the gnevor's total score would have exceeded the fifty percent (50%) threshold. It was the Umon's further posItIOn that the gnevor was qualIfied for the posItIOn of QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve On thIS pOInt, counsel referenced the gnevor's work hIStOry wIth the LCBO and wIth hIS former employers AddItIOnally he noted that Mr Moody was prepared to make a posItIve recommendatIOn In the gnevor's favour Counsel also referenced the scores gIven by Ms Thorpe and Mr Franssen In the IntervIew component for commumcatIOn skIlls Ms Thorpe, ultImately awarded a score of five (5) out often (10), whIle Mr Franssen awarded a score of SIX (6) out of ten (10) Counsel submItted that these scores represented a pass, and eVIdenced that the gnevor possessed the necessary commumcatIOn skIlls for the posItIOn. He further submItted that the selectIOn process used In thIS Instance faIled to 20 properly assess the gnevor's orgamzatIOnal, leadershIp analytIcal, Interpersonal, customer servIce and computer skIlls From the perspectIve of the Umon, the gnevor possessed sufficIent skIlls In all of these areas to qualIfy hIm for the posItIOn beIng sought. For all of the above reasons, counsel for the Umon submItted that the gnevor should be put Into the posItIOn, retroactIve to the date It was Improperly awarded to Mr Goulden, wIth monetary compensatIOn for hIS loss In the alternatIve, I was asked to order a re-run of the selectIOn process and to Impose any necessary condItIOns to ensure It would be conducted In accordance wIth the reqUIrements of artIcle 21 5 (a) of the collectIve agreement. Counsel for the Employer In response, agreed that the semor qualIfied applIcant IS entItled to a posted posItIOn under the language of artIcle 21 5 (a) He asserted that thIS provIsIOn was properly applIed In thIS case In argument, counsel focused on the nature of the posItIOn, the gnevor's qualIficatIOns, and the evaluatIOn process Counsel for the Employer noted that the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve posItIOn was new to the LOgIStICS Centre In London, Ontano He reIterated that It was a retaIl posItIOn, even though the work was to be performed at the Warehouse On hIS analYSIS, the Incumbent In the posItIOn dIrects Warehouse personnel for QualIty Control purposes Counsel stressed that such person must be able to work Independently wIth mImmal supervISIOn, as the dIrect SupervIsor IS located at Head Office In Toronto He also noted that the employee must have the abIlIty to commumcate, orgamze, pnontIze dIrect others, and to exerCIse leadershIp In counsel's words, these attnbutes or qualIficatIOns serve as "the umbrella" under whIch the practIcal Job functIOns, such as breakage stock, and Inventory are performed. Counsel dIsputed the Umon's argument that the Employer engaged In a comparatIve analYSIS of the applIcants In hIS Judgment, the assessment undertaken by the panel related to the applIcants' qualIficatIOns for the Job Counsel observed that the gnevor was a short-term employee of the LCBO and that, In the past, he had only performed general warehouse dutIes 21 More specIfically he had not prevIOusly performed any of the new tasks relatIng to the qualIty control functIOns of the posItIOn. Counsel relIed on Mr Moody's assessment that the gnevor lacked the reqUIsIte qualIficatIOns to perform the Job He also referenced the fact that Mr Franssen, the person who created the posItIOn, reached the same conclusIOn. In the final analysIs, It was the Employer's posItIOn that the Umon faIled to meet the onus of establIshIng that the gnevor was qualIfied to perform the Job at the tIme of the postIng. It was the posItIOn of the Employer that the evaluatIOn process used to assess the applIcants was consIstent WIth that descnbed on the Job PostIng In that It Included an IntervIew Job-related testIng, and a supervIsor's evaluatIOn. Counsel descnbed the process as "comprehensIve," and sufficIent to enable the selectIOn panel to make a fair reasonable, and Informed decIsIOn as to whether the gnevor was qualIfied to perform the work. He noted that there were three (3) equally weIghted components to the process Counsel submItted that thIS multIfaceted approach was consIstent WIth the Junsprudence developed by the Gnevance Settlement Board, and that such approach allowed the Employer to effectIvely measure the applIcants agaInst the posItIOn. He strenuously dIsputed the Umon's suggestIOn that the panel, In effect, compared or ranked the applIcants From hIS perspectIve, the fact that all of the IntervIews took place on the same day amounted to a red herrIng. Counsel further argued that there was no eVIdence to suggest that the Matnx Formula was concocted after the fact for purposes of aChIeVIng a desIred result. He maIntaIned that, In all the CIrcumstances of thIS case the IntervIew was not determInatIve of the ultImate decIsIOn. Rather It represented Just one (1) of the components factored Into the decIsIOn makIng process In thIS regard, counsel claimed that the reference check was an Important component as Mr Moody was best able to assess the applIcants' work hIStOry and to thereby proVIde valuable Input to the selectIOn panel Counsel acknowledged that personnel files were not accessed by the panel In thIS Instance He suggested that there would have been lIttle to reVIew gIven the relatIvely short servIce of both the gnevor 22 and Mr Goulden, and that thIS omISSIOn was Immatenal In VIew of the supervIsory evaluatIOn. Lastly counsel submItted that the panel was not contractually bound to commence the assessment process wIth the most semor applIcant. He stated that the Umon has never complaIned about the process preVIOusly and that to adopt the Umon's suggestIOn would lead to an onerous and unduly protracted method of selectIOn. For all of the above reasons, I was asked by counsel for the Employer to conclude that the selectIOn process was consIstent WIth the reqUIrements of the collectIve agreement and that the panel properly and reasonably determIned that the gnevor was not qualIfied to perform the work of the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve He submItted that the gnevance should, accordIngly be demed. The folloWIng awards were filed wIth thIS Vice-Chair In cloSIng argument. OLBEU (Bechard) and LCBO, 0900/97 (Watters) OLBEU (Netta et al.) and LCBO, 1404/97 et al (Mikus) OLBEU (Dyer) and LCBO, 506/80 (Saltman) OLBEU (Currans, Chaput) and LCBO, 0923 0924/97 (Knopf) The partIes agree that artIcle 21 5 (a) of the collectIve agreement IS a sufficIent abIlIty or threshold, type of Job postIng provISIOn, pursuant to whIch a semor applIcant wIll be entItled to the posItIOn provIded he or she IS qualIfied to perform the work. The oblIgatIOn that thIS type of provISIOn places on the Employer In respect of the selectIOn process, was descnbed by thIS Vice- Chair In the folloWIng excerpt from Bechard. "As stated earlIer artIcle 21 5 (a) IS a sufficIent abIlIty clause pursuant to whIch a promotIOn must be awarded to the semor qualIfied candIdate ThIS type of provISIOn, In my Judgment, places certaIn oblIgatIOns on the Employer In terms of the nature of the process It uses to fill Job postIngs Clearly the process should be desIgned to focus on the qualIficatIOns of the semor person In respect of her/hIs abIlIty to perform the dutIes and responSIbIlItIes of the posted posItIOn. I am satIsfied that the process should, normally Include an assessment by the selectIOn panel of the semor applIcant's work hIStOry and expenence, IncludIng a reVIew of relevant performance appraisals, supervISOry comments, and dIscIplInary and attendance records These sources of InformatIOn are Important because they wIll lIkely provIde the panel wIth some InsIght as to how the applIcant mIght perform 23 If placed In the Job More specIfically It allows them to match the employee agaInst the actual Job dutIes and to thereby reach an Informed assessment as to whether the person has the needed skIll, abIlIty and expenence Put a slIghtly dIfferent way I thInk that a panel places a selectIOn In real Jeopardy when It dIsregards InformatIOn relevant to the threshold questIOn wIth whIch It IS seIzed. I have no doubt the process may Include an IntervIew or test, of the type used here, subJect to the caveat that there IS a substantIal nsk such an IntervIew wIthout more, may be vIewed as InSUfficIent In terms of ItS abIlIty to YIeld an accurate assessment of the candIdate's overall qualIficatIOns Generally the IntervIew should form part of the exerCIse rather than beIng the entIre process In other words, It should not serve as the sole or exclusIve measure of an employee's qualIficatIOns, especIally In sItuatIOns where other relevant data IS readIly avaIlable In summary I conclude that the process should be suffiCIently comprehensIve so as to permIt the Employer to make a fair reasonable, and Informed deCISIOn as to whether the semor candIdate IS qualIfied to perform the work. " (pages 34 - 36) As I understand the substance of the Umon's pOSItIOn, It IS that the Employer In thIS Instance utIlIzed a process that was not desIgned to focus on the qualIficatIOns of the semor person In respect of hIS abIlIty to perform the dutIes and responsIbIlItIes of the posted pOSItIOn. Rather from the perspectIve of the Umon, the Employer engaged In a comparatIve exercIse, of the sort that normally occurs under a competItIve Job postIng proVIsIOn, for purposes of selectIng the best applIcant and, In so dOIng, undermIned the nght accorded to the gnevor under artIcle 21 5 (a) to benefit from hIS greater semonty As mentIOned, the Employer elected to use a score of fifty percent (50%) In the overall process as the benchmark for determInIng whether an applIcant met the mImmum qualIficatIOns for the Job ThIS form of quantItatIve assessment IS not obJectIOnable, as long as the threshold establIshed IS reasonable and the vanous components leadIng to the ultImate score permIt the Employer to reach an Informed deCISIOn as to whether the applIcant has the reqUIsIte skIll, abIlIty and expenence to perform the work. The Umon, here, dId not senously contest the Employer's deCISIOn to establIsh a threshold for qualIficatIOns at fifty percent (50%) I note, In passIng, that thIS was less than the "deemed pass mark" of SIxty percent (60%) ImtIally 24 establIshed In Currans and Chaput. The pnmary thrust of the Umon's argument IS that the components of the selectIOn process, eIther IndIVIdually or In conJunctIOn, dId not provIde for a mechamsm for the Employer to reasonably and fairly assess the gnevor's qualIficatIOns to perform the work of the QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve ThIS submIssIOn reqUIres some analYSIS of the IntervIew Job testIng, and reference check components of the process AddItIOnally It calls for an assessment as to whether the Employer could properly resort to the Matnx system, as descnbed above, as a valId measure of qualIficatIOns As prevIOusly stated, I find that the questIOns asked of the applIcants In the IntervIew were reasonably related to the dutIes and responsIbIlItIes of the posted posItIOn. On my readIng, the questIOns were desIgned to elIcIt InformatIOn, whIch would assIst the selectIOn panel In determInIng whether an applIcant was qualIfied for the posItIOn. AddItIOnally the questIOns provIded an applIcant wIth the opportumty to expand on the nature of hIS or her past expenence, as documented In the resume I am satIsfied that the RatIng Cntena set out on the CandIdate RatIng Form gave the panellIsts some real InsIght as to what should be Included In a full answer I also thInk It lIkely on the basIs of the eVIdence presented, that the sufficIency of the answers provIded was further addressed In the post-IntervIew dIscussIOn. In my Judgment, thIS IS not a case where the panel was III eqUIpped to assess the answers gIven by the applIcants ThIS conclUSIOn IS also supported by the expenence of the panel members, partIcularly Mr Franssen and Mr Moody As a consequence I do not conSIder It matenal that the panel members dId not ImtIally dISCUSS what they were lookIng for In the answer to each questIOn. I have not been persuaded that the panel assessed whIch applIcant offered the best answer and that the process, In substance amounted to a comparatIve exerCIse Rather I accept that the panel members evaluated the answers provIded for purposes of measunng whether an applIcant was qualIfied to perform the reqUISIte work. 25 I do not accept the Umon' s submIssIOn that the Employer was oblIgated to commence the IntervIew process WIth the most semor applIcant. WhIle It could have done so such an approach IS not mandated by the collectIve agreement. As mentIOned, the agreement reqUIres that the process used must permIt for a reasonable and fair assessment of the applIcants' qualIficatIOns to perform the work of the Job I also reJect the Umon's submIssIOns that It was Improper for the Employer to have scheduled all of the IntervIews on the same date and that the answers should have been assessed on a pass-fall basIs On my analysIs, the fact that the IntervIews were all conducted on the same day and that answers were gIven a numencal score out of ten (10) dId not transform the IntervIew component Into the type of comparatIve process tYPIcally engaged In under a competItIve Job postIng provISIOn. Mr Stanley was not called as a wItness to explaIn hIS assessment of the answers provIded by the gnevor at the IntervIew He gave the gnevor a score of thIrty-two (32) out of mnety (90) ThIS represented the lowest score gIven to the gnevor by the panel members WhIle It mIght have been helpful to hear dIrectly from Mr Stanley In thIS Instance I do not thInk anythIng turns on hIS faIlure to testIfy I Infer from the score that he gave to the gnevor that he would lIkely have shared Mr Franssen's assessment as to the gnevor's qualIficatIOns I also note Ms Thorpe's eVIdence that, after the gnevor's IntervIew all three (3) panellIsts agreed he had "faIled the IntervIew " As prevIOusly stated, I find that the questIOns asked In both the Product IdentIficatIOn and PackagIng Standards Test and the Product Knowledge Test were reasonably related to the dutIes and responSIbIlItIes of the posted posItIOn. As noted, neIther the Umon nor the gnevor challenged the appropnateness of the questIOns I dIsagree wIth the Umon's assertIOn that the Employer should have dIsregarded the scores after It became apparent that the gnevor and Mr Goulden faIled both tests I note, In thIS regard, that the removal of theIr scores from the process would not have been matenal, In VIew of the fact that the dIfference In such scores was mImmal I am 26 satIsfied the Employer coul d properly el ect to contInue wIth the selectIOn process notwIthstandIng that both applIcants faIled the tests Put another way I do not thInk that the Employer was oblIgated to dIsqualIfy them from further consIderatIOn gIven theIr test results Indeed, for ObVIOUS reasons, the Umon dId not suggest that dIsqualIficatIOn should have occurred. In all of the cIrcumstances, I see nothIng obJectIOnable In the Employer's decIsIOn to Include the test scores In the overall evaluatIOn of the applIcants In thIS sense, the test was not "a non-factor" as claimed by the Umon. Mr Moody In hIS eVIdence explaIned the reasons underlYIng hIS assessment of the gnevor and Mr Goulden. I accept that on a cursory reVIew of hIS eVIdence, It mIght be arguable that Mr Moody may have compared the two (2) applIcants In the process of provIdIng the reference checks to Ms Thorpe Without doubt, he thought Mr Goulden was "the better candIdate" I am satIsfied, however from a thorough reVIew of the entIrety of Mr Moody's testImony that he dId not belIeve the gnevor was qualIfied to perform the work of the posItIOn. Mr Moody referenced deficIenCIes on the part of the gnevor In the folloWIng areas computer skIlls abIlIty to work Independently wIth mImmal supervISIOn, and leadershIp skIlls He further doubted that the gnevor was qualIfied to perform "more speCIfic aspects of the Job" such as assIstIng WIth the preparatIOn of an annual budget, planmng and pnontIZIng work actIVItIes, and lIaisIng effectIvely wIth QualIty Control LOgIStICS and Head Office Mr Moody also questIOned whether the gnevor possessed the reqUISIte knowledge of the Internal operatIOns, processes, and controls of the LogIstIcal RetaIl Support Centre It seemed to be hIS assessment that the gnevor could only do the more general tasks related to warehouse functIOns Mr Moody dId not have these same reservatIOns concermng Mr Goulden. From hIS perspectIve, whIle Mr Goulden mIght not have been able "to Jump In and perform all aspects of the Job" he was, unlIke the gnevor able to perform a sIgmficant number of the core dutIes of the pOSItIOn. I note that Mr Moody testIfied that, In arrIVIng at hIS overall ratIng of Mr Goulden, he dId not compare hIm to 27 the gnevor In hIS words, he Instead compared the gnevor to "the qualIficatIOns of the Job" It IS clear that Mr Moody's Involvement In the selectIOn process was lImIted to the provIsIOn of the references He dId not partIcIpate In the panel's dIscussIOn of the applIcants I am satIsfied that the InfOrmatIOn he dId proVIde was conSIstent WIth the panel's ultImate conclusIOn that the gnevor was not qualIfied to perform the work and that Mr Goulden was qualIfied. I reJect the Umon's argument that the gnevor and Mr Goulden should each have been gIven a mark often (10) out often (10), as both "passed" the reference check component of the process NeIther of the applIcants were entItled to thIS mark, as they were not rated as "Excellent" by Mr Moody I further note that If the gnevor lIke Mr Goulden, had receIved a ratIng of "Very Good," he would stIll have achIeved an overall total score of less than fifty percent (50%) I am unable to find that the Employer's decIsIOn to gIve equal weIghtIng to the three (3) components of the selectIOn process vIOlated the reqUIrements of the collectIve agreement. There IS absolutely no eVIdence before me to suggest that the Matnx format was adopted "after the fact" by the Employer wIth the Intent to benefit Mr Goulden and to undermIne the gnevor's semonty nghts Rather I thInk It was properly used by the Employer to weIght and quantIfy the overall assessments of the applIcants UltImately I agree wIth the Employer that the selectIOn process was comprehensIve and suffiCIent to enable the panel to make a fair reasonable and Informed decIsIOn as to whether the gnevor was qualIfied to perform the work of the posted posItIOn In thIS Instance, the Employer premIsed ItS decIsIOn on InfOrmatIOn gaIned from several sources It dId not restnct ItS assessment to what was said In the IntervIew The fact that the IntervIew scores may have been determInatIve In the final analysIs does not support eIther an award of the J ob to the gnevor or a re-run of the process It was acknowledged by counsel for the Employer that the personnel files of the applIcants were not accessed In thIS Instance I am InclIned to accept that there was lIkely lIttle to 28 reVIew thereIn gIven the relatIvely short servIce of both the gnevor and Mr Goulden. I also accept that thIS omIssIOn, to a large extent, was offset by the reference check provIded by Mr Moody Mr Moody as noted, had worked wIth both employees and was theIr SupervIsor The Umon, here, dId not argue that the faIlure to resort to personnel files flawed the Instant process In my Judgment, however the Employer would be well advIsed In future to reVIew thIS source of InfOrmatIOn. In other cIrcumstances, faIlure to do so could lead to a successful challenge agaInst both the selectIOn process and the result of the Job postIng. In summary I conclude that the selectIOn process used In thIS Instance was not flawed, as claimed by the Umon. I find that the InformatIOn generated by the process was suffiCIent for the Employer to properly determIne that the gnevor was not qualIfied to perform the work of a QualIty Control LOgIStICS RepresentatIve and that Mr Goulden was qualIfied for the posItIOn. For all of the above reasons, the gnevance IS demed. Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 3rd day of October 2005 . POSITION DESCRIPTION- BARGAINING UNIT ,-, . POSITION TITLE. POSITION CODE ,;f.,'. ;"'~, ~ . CURRENT DAT&i::;';";J;~, QC Logistics Representative 20-0-00-909-716 November 10, 2003 DIVISION '--. DEPARTMEm.;~I{&I\\;iB;~.~:r~l..~~~:ii:' 'SECTION ;,<,;'t'ii:,' Sales & Marketing Quality Assurance Quality Control POSITION REPORTS TO; TITLE . '_'1~';';;;~: ;:'POSITION CODE. ~~~!~;~;"1::~\t~?~~~:: Manager Quality Control 20-0-00-909-526 PREVIOUS POSITION TITLE PREVIOUS POSITION CODE;.;'" PREVIOUS DATE' .,- New Position NUMBER OF INCUMBENTS PROVIDES LEADERSHIP TO ::: HOURS OE-WO 3-1 per warehouse location 37.5 hours per week PURPOSE OF POSITlONI ~'l,.. -""W"""'; 'ii ~ ~ ~, ' 1;~;, it-~~(~y (4":!~.~.l* 'J;,'l<fr~.~ , To administer the diverse areas of responsibility within the Quality Control Department at Logistics Retail Service Centres (Toronto, Ottawa, London); plan, schedule and perform all related activities to respond to product quality and packaging issues. I DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES;..,' ~-;:' ,~". .".,.h....;.J'".;'"'::..:;.w1 ;J~_. t,~~';"~:,.."'~;J,~"~ <;1 . Under the general supervision of the Manager Quality Control. the position is responsible for the coordination and movement of products for quality control purposes and administration of the quality control function at LCBO Retail Service Centres (Toronto, Ottawa, London): Provide administrative duties to support the QC function: I . Hire casual and temporary work force; prepare and post work schedules, update and report hours worked [0 QA AdminiStrative Assistant, Head Office. J. Assist Quality Control Manager in preparing an annual budget, ensuring workplace safety and maintaining an ISO 9001:2000 quality management system. . Plan and prioritize work activities to facilitate the QC functions within the facility; ensure suspect products are held in the warehouse, corrected, returned, destroyed or released for distribution in a timely manner monitor work in progress and compile statistical reports for cost recovery purposes, e.g., vendor chargebacks. . Coordinate movement of inventory to and from third party warehouses; prepare documentation to facilitate shipping and receiving, confirm quantities, review any corrective work performed to ensure acceptability and report status to QC Head Office. . Liaise with QC Logistics Administrator and QC Logistics Coordinator to identify isolate and report defective and non-compliant prodUCt; initiate product holds, lock pick location slots, collect and compile statistical information relative to quantitie~ isolated, packaging codes, shipment statistics, confirm inventory counts and report to QC Head Office and monitor inventory adjustments. . Liaise with QC Logistics Administrator and QC Logistics Coordinator to initiate all functions associated with Return/Destruction Authorizations and IQAR Inventory Adjustment; prepare documentation and coordinate related activities. . Liaise with QC Logistics Administrator and QC Logistics Coordinator to initiate actions to respond to warehouse inspection, corrective action and order-up requests; visually inspect, candle and re- package product, apply corrective labels to shipping containers and consumer selling unitS, obtain product samples and packaging and prepare for shipment to QC Head Office. . Liaise with LCBO staff within QC Head Office, RSC, Traffic, Claims, Customs, as well as, staff at Canada Customs and Revenue Agency LCBO contracted recycling company and third party warehouses to coordin:l.te the movement of product associated with the QC function. . Provide assistance to the QA Quality Officer to identify and implement continuous improvement and preventive action opportunities; develop and document new procedures/processes related to the Quality Control function. per ISO 9001:2000 requirements, establish Quality Control methods and procedures, ensure integration with procedures established by facility and maintain, review and process internal forms, records and documents associated with this function. . Perform general administrative duties; maintain supplier files, send faxes, distribute correspondence, answer enquiries, order office supplies. etc, . Keep apprised of corporate administrative policies and procedures related to product distribution, alerts and recalls. November 2003 Page 1 . LeBO Position Description Bargainmg Unit & Excluded 20-0.00.909.716 Process breakage and salvage operations in accordance with established procedures within the facility . Ensure protective safety attire is worn to perform function, e.g goggles, gloves, footwear apron, etc. . Receive damaged inventory . Unpack consumer units/bottles and separate saleable units from un-sellable units. . Retain broken consumer unit/bottles with seal intact for audit and control purposes. . Clean and repack salvageable consumer units/bottles; label cartons with applicable LCBO # P 0 # and total number of units re-packaged and seal the cartons, . Retain a listllog summarizing saleable, un-sellable and defective/broken. . Arrange for the recurn of saleable inventory to its designated pick location/ slot. . Arrange for the necessary inventory adjustments to be made. Provide technical support to investigate, monitor and resolve product quality-related problems within the Logistics warehouse environment: . Inspect, spot-check and monitor product for compliance with LCBO Product Packaging Standards and Canadian Association of Liquor Jurisdictions Product Identification Standards: initiate shipping container reviews on incoming products received at the facility per established standard operating procedures. . Assist facility staff to ensure proper stock rotation of date sensitive products; identify age of product upon receipt of shipments and interpret product date code information, . Monitor incoming shipments and collect product samples for QC Head Office and QA Laboratory when requested. . Prepare Lab Sample shipping documents and update the exam transmittal as necessary to initiate invoicing. . Ensure work is performed in an environmentally responsible manner with appropriate awareness of environmental management and health and safety programs. . Assist in maintaining and updating departmental databases; Beer Code, Chargeback and Monitoring Brands databases. . Perform other duties as assigned. KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL: (REQU LEVEL)~" ' ~':fl; -. _' , Position requires product quality and control: excellent knowledge of warehousing centres internal operations, processes and controls: superior written and verbal communication skills; excellent organizational, interpersonal, leadership, analytical and problem solving skills; strong product knowledge obtained through the completion ofLCBO Product Knowledge Correspondence Course - Level III or equivalent; compelling customer service skills; demonstrated knowledge ofLCBO Product Packaging Standards and Guidelines for Chemical Analysis and CAL] Product Identification Standards; excellent knowledge and ability to apply mainframe and personal computer applications, i.e. Access. Excel, Word, Outlook; WCSS etc.; demonstrated understanding ofISO 9001:2000 standards. Physical ability to life and carry cases weighing up to 60 pounds -' AUTHORlZED BY: I SIGNA TURE:g I DATE: aI1L::Jl.<J:J." November, 2003 Page 2