HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0820.Rebello.07-08-24 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2006-0820
UNION# 2006-0546-0021
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Rebello)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Mini stry of Finance)
Joseph D. Carrier
Serge Linarello
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Julie Legault-Hockley
Labour Relations Consultant
Ministry of Finance
July 24, 2007
August 14, 2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
On or about February 16,2006 the Grievor, Eremita Rebello, grieved that she had been
improperly denied a position as a Collection Officer (OAG 10) in the Revenue Collections
Branch of the Ministry of Revenue.
The Grievor has, in the meantime, successfully attained that position. In the circumstances, the
case before me relates only to the damages she might have incurred between the date the position
was awarded to the successful candidate and the date she was ultimately placed in a similar
position.
A competition was run for three OAG 10 positions in accordance with the provisions of Article 6
of the Collective Agreement between the Employer and OPSEU In order to determine or select
successful candidates, the Employer amongst other things ran a competition which included
interviews with the nine candidates as well as written tests. There was a threshold set by the
Employer of 50% of the total mark possible. Of the nine candidates only three scored above the
threshold. The Grievor was not only not among those three she was the sixth ranked among the
nine candidates. Furthermore, her total mark of 37.5% was a full fifteen lower than the 52.5%
mark achieved by the lowest of the three successful candidates. Of the nine candidates, the three
with the highest scores including the candidate with 52.5% were awarded the three positions of
OAG10.
There is no allegation that the competition was run in bad faith or that the Grievor was
discriminated against by the Employer. Furthermore, there is no allegation that the process used
to select successful candidates was not equally applied to each of them. Rather, it was the
Grievor's view that she ought to have received higher marks on the test than she achieved. Of
3
course, had she received sufficiently higher marks she would have been among the successful
candidates.
THE DECISION
I have considered the Agreed Statement of Facts which were submitted jointly by the Parties in
this case. I have also considered the Grievor's view that she was given lower marks than she felt
were appropriate to her answers. However, absent evidence that the tests were inappropriate or
that the Grievor was somehow discriminated against with respect to the manner in which the
tests were applied or administered, there is no basis upon which I could set aside the scores
achieved by the various candidates. There was no allegation of bad faith or discrimination with
respect to the tests or the testing; there was only the Grievor's view that she ought to have
received higher marks for her answers. Aside from the fact that the Grievor failed to achieve the
threshold set by the Employer (a significant but not conclusive fact), her test results were 15%
lower than those of the lowest of the successful candidates. She, therefore, could not in any way
be considered relatively equal to that candidate or any other successful candidate with respect to
the position. Indeed, a 15% differential based upon a test of relative equality as set out in Article
6.3 of the Parties' Collective Agreement is significant.
In the circumstances, there is no basis upon which the choice of any of the successful candidates
could be set aside in favour of the Grievor. The grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 24th day of August, 2007.
ER
rievance Settlement Board