HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0381.Ellsworth et al.81-06-26Between:
13efore:
IN THE XATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROW EXPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BAEGkiSiXG ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLE>fENT BOARD
Gail Ellsworth,
Barbara Fisher,
Nancy Gale, Donald Ward,
- And -
Griavors
The Crown in Right of Onzerio
(Xinistry of Community & Social Services) Zir.piCye.7
E. B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice Chairman
E. Ft. O'k'elly Member
R. Russell :,!ember
For the Grievor: kI. Pratt. Grievance Of'icer A
Ontario Public Service Employees I;nion
S. Xhir;e, Employee XelatLons OffLcer
Xinistry of Coarnunity & Social Services
Hearing: February 25 .?A 26, 1951 ,
March 6, 1081
,' .-. ., _
:I-
=2
./
-2-
D 2c IS IOS
This was a e?=ievaace peserted by r'ou= s2wq3essi'd
candidates follow&g the result of a conFetition held at
?ictoa io Xarcb, 19ao.
The pupose of the, cozgetition %a.s to seL?ct a ze-
placement for the gost oi Business Supervisor (Cierk j,
( - General) " at t*e ?rkce z&q=& zeights facility 0;‘ s‘cp iibis-
t-q of Conmnity and Socisl Services. T'aere were six cardi-
dates, all employed at the faciliQ. .%eg xere:
1. Sheila D~~sieg, a Clerk 3, 3es?raL, :vi;h se=-
iori?y dating fro3 1975.
2. Gail Z;llsworth, a Clerk j, General, witA sec-
iorizy from 1971.
3. Barbara Fisher, a Secretszy 3, with SeriOrity ,
from 197-I.
4. Sancy G&e, a Clerk 3, General, wit3 senioricy
from 1973.
5. ilon 3, Gad, a Clerk 4, General, witk seniori;J
from 1969.
6. W. Xogers, a Clerk 4, ienerel.
I+.. Sowsley was rsnked first io the coooetitisn sod
she accegted the gost. 411 the other candidates except ?Tz.~
Lagers have contested the result. Taey rely of course 03
'Article 4.3 in the applicable collective agreement, ~whic'h is
as follows:
in filling a vacancy, the 2;r~loyeT Shall give prismry consideration to qualifications and ability to perfom the requtied duties. Where qualifications sod ability 31‘~ relatively equal, length of continuous service shsll be a
consideration.
i .r
/
-3-
2s. 2owsleg, the successfxl cazdidase, xas ;o;i;‘ixl
of i;his arbitration ad attended ti person Z’L?zou$~ouJ a 3jre+
day heainq. Given the opportunity to guestion ititzesses aZi
i;b make representations, she waived that zigLt or each
occasion.
The Prince Zdward .Eeights facility has a setif of
about 450 servtig the needs of 4CO or aoze “residents”.
iu‘aturdllr it is necessary to record attendance, 3zocess ?a3
and expense dabs, admtiister trust moneys on ‘cebail’ of
residents and cope with accounts ;rayable a3d ,-eceivabie as
well as com$ging with reg.iLatorg and bzdset control requke-
sent s . To carry out these duties, the 3usbess Office Su;?r-
visor has a staff of nine clerks snd is responsible to the
facilitJ's r’insz.cial office and budget Control Officer.
-4-
It is so provided in the Position Specification and Class
Allocation Form, Exhibit 3, which had been reviewed and up-
dated prior to the competition by Mr. C. S. Scoyne, Finart-
cial Officer, and Mr. R.A. Nye, the Regionsit Personnel Man-
ager. A significant change made (in accordance with a new
policy in respect of "credentialism") was (by Exhibit 4) to
eliminate the requirement that candidates have "Grade 12,
preferably successful completion of two years of a recognized
accounting course or its equivalent obtained tL:ough tec‘hnical
or other institutions." Thus the reference to Grade 12 and
an accounting course did not appear in the Posting Notice of
February 25, 1980, Exhibit 2, being replaced by the words:
"Good working knowledge of government accounting policies
and procedures and ability tc interpret financial policy and
translate into effective procedures." It is obvious that such
general statem.ents give selection boards a much wider latitude
or discretion than a mandatory requirement for a minimum stand-
ard of education or training, a.discretion which was fully
exercised in this case.
A vigorous and sustained attack on the competition
of march, 1980, was pressed throughout a three-day hearing by
the four grievers and their representative, the purpose
being to demonstrate that the result was unfair, unreascnable
and contrary to the intent of Article 4.3 in the agreement.
I’ ,5-
it became clea the gkeVOrS feel. ‘rer3 st2OE&r <cat there
has been a in,justice done to then and rhat their .CghJ.3-
,sraised performance over a period of JPEZS cas been ST+;O--J “il
retiarded. The reasons for their indignation sre readill
ap_3arent, and may be summarized as follows:
1. All the ,Ti+vors f.as~if+& ;ha; s;e* ~~py~~~-,qs
were brief (15 or 20 minutes) snd >erfunctor3, that the3 xere
~coi; questioned “in depth:’ 0,” asked ;o e-la& sock b?o=tz;
answers as those relating to their e-eriecce, so that the3
went awa3 wic‘h the tigression the irtervia:iing ‘had been, co
sa;r t’ce leas:, su;rerficizl. Later k s&e &z--kg-, c‘;e z=pLo7*’
o-educed Exhibit 12, -- a list or’ 21 ‘questions s‘he Selection 3oard
had agreed should be ?ut to t’ce candidates, and it xas cesti-
lied by the 3oard members (Er. ii3e, the Zeyionsl ?ersonnel
Eanager, Pir. Scoyne, the ?i.ns.ncial Officer, and Yz. r’ield, a
social worker) that according to their recollection ail
questions were asked of each candidate. The grievors were
called in re?ly. tin being taken throug’a each snd every
question in L&i’oit 12, they emphatically insisted that man3
were never asked. Their evidence on the sotit is tireconcil-
able with that of the Selection aosrd members. iLore will be
said of this later.
2. The successful candidate, having been hired ti
1975, had less seniority r;han any of the grievers, being -
fron their point of virw --- a very lata a-rival on zhe scene.
R
‘6 -
3. ?he successful candidate 'cad muc‘h less ex-cer-
ience than the others ti the 3usicess if:ice. 9.e t-ad 2ez sgioyed
originally as a Clerk 2 on ?aymll and t&en as a Gerk 3 in cb.r<+ or‘ ,?izecdXXe
iiecords. The, other candidaces had e-qerience in a variet3
of dir'ferent factions within the 3uskess Office, xc% as the
hxmnts Payable, Accounts .Receivable and Tbuet Accounts as :veX asAttendance
and Payroll. 'he grievers' feelings on this issue :fere onl3
exacerbated -&en L!r. kco3r.e called a meetins titer tCe re-
SUi'; of the competition xas known a5d ask?d the grievers
( ^-s he ,a&j.ts) to aive a3.i the 'he12 :Y.ey corsld to ;‘ceir Ee:i
s;lparvisor in view of the fact that she lacked experience .A
several fuxtions of the office.
4 . 'The four grievers had received excellent per- \ fornance appraisals, 3xiibits 7 to 11 inclusive.
(a)'-‘ ' .' . uommencmg 13 aeptemoer, ‘1971, Es. ziis-
*had received a series of six verg favourable apPrais&s
from-the first supervisor, >!s. ;A:. Smith, a t3pica.l
comment being: 'You not only carry a heavy workload
k keeping i3voices up-to-date, and doing al.1 your own
correspondence relating to tinvoices, but you are aLwa3s
willing to, assist y,fherever needed in the business 3ffice".
prom June 5, 1975, to Lay jl, 1379, Ms. Xllssrorth received
equally favourable appraisals from the second 3usbess
Office Supervisor, ?Ir. 2.3. Nelson, with praise for a
"high level of dedication to any work assiqment".
(b) Nr. Shard (the griever with most seniority)
also received very favourable appraisals from Es. Smith
between October 1971, snd Jul3, 1974, and from yir. XeSsom
between June, 1976, and June, 1979, becomtig "Senior Twoll
j!
-7-
Clerk" with a Clerk 4 classification.
(c) Ms. Nancy Gale received four appraisals from
Jbr. Nelson between October, 1976, and November, 1979,
all very favourable. The first began by saying "you
have given us another year of outstanding work"., They
are marked by high praise and the third referred to
the fact that she had been awarded the Queen’s Jibilee
medal for "outstanding service".
i * . (d) For some reason, performance appraisals in
respect of Ms. Barbara Fisher and the successful can-
didate, Ms. Dowsley, were not placed in evidence.
5. To some it undoubtedly seemed strange that Ms.
Dowsley's qualifications as a Clerk 3 were considered by the
Selection Board to be so far superior to the qualifications
of others that she received a "double promotion", becoming a
Clerk 5, General, thus leaping.over Messrs. Rogers and Wart,
both classified Clerk 4, one of whom at the time of the com-
i petition was the acting supervisor in the Business Office, SO
i designated by Mr. Scoyne. As recently as 1976, she had been
a Clerk 2 (assisting the Senior Payroll Clerk) and her prcgress-
ion from that level to that of a Clerk 5 in March, 1980, was
thought by fellow-employees to be rather remarkable. '-
It now becomes necessary to consider the procedure used
in assessing the merits of the candidates and arriving at the
result.
Prior to the interviews Mr. Nye and Mr. Scoyne met,
reviewed the position specification, decided on the criteria
t to be used and devised a series of questions to be asked.
The position specification gave the following weight to
-8,
.
various coqozents ?f the 20s;: '
(d) Co-ogeratiq !fith 3udget Control Cl’s’icer;
assmiq duties of ?inancial dfficer b 5s absence,
and other related duties: IO _ser cent.
This 3oerd cannot and does xot assess the h~?loyer’s
reightkg of components as set out above. :ðer thaz dis-
tribution of res?onsibilitJ was adequately txnslated ti the
,:uestions listed br Shibit 12 is aother matter. Still
another nttter is the weighttig given b7 the Seleczioo 3oazd
on their score-ca-ds.
The score-cards :iere weighted as r'ollows, fez a
'maximum total of 50 points:.
1. Knowledge of 4 different functions iritb 5 _30tits
each, totalling 20;
..a A
,( - 9-
2. Administrative Experience: :o pJin;s.
5. Supervisoq ~~eriaace/~~oiii~ies: IC ?Ok.;S.
4. Communication &ills: 10 ?OizalJS.
5. Zersonal 5uitability: 10 ?OLlTS.
The scoring, accordtig to the testimony of ;iessrs.
Zge, 5coyn.e end Field, :<as done on nhe basis of ans:;ers no :'ap
questions outltied in Z&cnit :2, whic'h is reproduced below.
( BUSIXESS OFFICE SUPERVISOR P.E.H. C/i30
Technical
1. How much involvement have you had with the foliowing:
1) Paproil
2) Attendance P
3) Accounts Payable
4) Accounts Receivable/Trust Accounts
Explain - degree of responsibility/duration, etc.
Administration
1. Nhat experience have you had in organizing/planning work
(' processes, flow of work, etc?
j 2. Have you ever had to translate policy into procedures?
If so, please provide examples. If not what process would
you follow.
4. What responsibilities have you had for report preparation?
5. Nhat changes would you make in the Business Office?
Supervisory Experience/Abilities
1. Tell us about your supervisory experience.
2. How many, types/levels,of staff, typical problems.
3.. Have you ever had to discipline or fire anyone?
‘\.
- 10 -
4. What is the Collective Agreement?
5. What does it provide for both bargaining/Management
Employees?
6. How are you going to handle the situation where your
previous peers have all applied for this-job and are
resentful?
7. How would,you describe your style of management?
8. How would you handle the situ;ition where you inherit
an incompetent employee.
Communication Skills
1. During your work history what levels of people have
you had to communicate with and on what issues?
2. Have you ever spoken to a group where you are providing'
information as the expert?
Personal.Suitability
1. What are your interests in a job?
2. What are your assets/liabilities?
” r, I I
-11 -
210 imortan* v qualifications of c.Le above 322; te
mentioned.
‘b? first iS that srjme sf ahe questions were rather
looselY paraphrased or reworded. For example, according TO ai:
w it ne sses, t.b.e last qties$iozt *das usnall;r aslksd ti x09S f0
the following ef'ect: .
"If your Sest friend were asked for an opinion
doout you, what would the arsxer be?”
- and -
“if your- :worst enemy were asked for an ogjnion
about you, what :4ould the anssrer be?”
Lu this 3oard’s vie:?, both questions are rather
silly and most unliicel~ to elicit a meaningful response.
‘&at itould Se disclosed about ‘!?ersona.l suitability” ‘has not
been eqlatied, although the _srobably hesitant replies a?,ear
to have keen given a weight amount~Ag to one-sixz’h of the
total. 3efore members of a selection board ?ose such frivo-
i
lous questions they should ask themselves how they :fould re?lg
at an interview.
The second qualification in respect of Exhibit ?2 has
already been ffientioned. .Ul the &svxs, on being shorn Exhibit i2. s&d ZZU~ 0f
the questions were not asked at all or ‘rlere put in a very
_Jerfunctorg way. ~2or example, they said they were not given
an opportunity to explah the “degree of responsibility/
durati’on etc.” of their involvement in the four functions
- 12 -
listed ,.iith Guestion 1. Instead, they were sinDI.7 asked il’
the7 :‘:uew” the -lap011 function, etc., 3~d i9 thea said “‘-‘es” ”
the 3oard then moved on to the next question. .si:r-+s . ?‘J:ce2-ce
in reply, all the grievers xere certain that a number of TiPS-
tions were not asked at all. Moreover, this seemed inconsistent
with the statement (made to .ail of then at o’he outsetj t’hat rhe7
were to answer as though. the selection ~oozrci knew not’tirr,- about
them. it 5185 a _ouzzling Dretence iz, view 0: the fact tiat the:
had all riled full re'sum& of their ‘history and exr,erience
(before and during their service :.~ith t’ae xh$‘;q~j zi s&L
.de:e a;qae t&t Cir. 2;y-e & hr. Scope were qAj.te faili= xi;‘2
the& Dast ?erformsnce. Gav$q ‘Dee= z&zcid Cf;‘icer -,-it‘2
overall authority over the 3usiness Office slice 1979, :ir.
Scoyne had seen recent appraisals, as he conceded in ‘his test-
imony . 3e also said he thought Xr. Xelson’s appraisals had
been unduly generous, but failed to exD1ati why Iis. Smith’s
earlier a&ra.isals were equslly i’avourable.
t h very unusual feature of this case was the testi-
mony of the two former supervisors of the 3us.iness cffice, 21s.
Dorothy smith and ;ir. ?.,!I. iielson. They made it clear on the
basis of their own eqerience ti dormer gears that their aval-
uation of the candidates was quite different Iron that of
t!essrs. Xye, Scoy-ne and r’ield.
KS. Smith, a aegistered industrial Accountant, is
now r’inancial Officer at the 52%bed 3rockville %yc’hiatric
c
1
- 13 -
Hospital. After previous experiences as a Sudget Officsr
at Hamilton, she was from 1971 the Accountant at the ?riXe
Edward Heights facility, eventually becoming the Financial
Officer, the position now held by Jlr. ScoYne.
KS. Smith said she had authority over the 3usiness
Office when the ;'acilitT opened. (ai until 197j) and 'tied
most of the employees at chat time. !,nip S,h,e cozr-hued: L--J
vere very kelpful in setting u:, The systen. SO d1 '=aC :o
fill in.
I suy,ervised them for most of the period. ,ik?C
came Xsrry Xelson." '12 - Xelson became 3usLness Cffice Sqer-
visor untii 1779, :fhen iQ.s promotion $0 2 xaiito- - -4 7 4 - zawaeau.;
created a vacancy.
is r'or Es. Z11sxorth, ?!s. Smith said she was a hszd
worker via never claized overtime, started as a cas;?iez wish
<he "ain money" account, then was alaced in charge of accounts
payable and later the payroll. ,?he witness identified her
appraisals of Es. Zllsworth, indicattig that she had 3erfornad
well in several d+'* -ALerent functions and urgtig tiiat she take
an accounting course so that she could c_ualify for t‘ne >romot-
ion to Clerk 4 level. She said i'ls. glls4orth had :'vol;l;rteered
to take an accounttig course, but Tersonnel couldn't qare 1?er."
MS. smith pointed out that Xs. 3arbara ?isher ‘had *
been trsnsferred elsewhere from the 3usiness Cffice, but "she
was very helpful while she was there".
- 14 -
;;j for i:s. 11~~~7 ;ale, :‘ce :.~i<34ss s3j.i !‘s.ce :r;p
later, but she S2d a good ‘bsnking background. L once ‘LeeA
.3a auditor tell tke .idgjzistrator it was the nicest office
Le’d Seen in . It .das a good team”.
,?ne witness referred to and confirmed ‘be= aG;raisals
of Iir. iszd (between 7971 u& :97L+j i;: ~x4~~it 2 :+ke=e s& L+<
recommended .zl accounting course snd meotioned that “7’0~ are
extremel;r conscientious end voiuntarilg returned frcm hour
holidays to co?e with the workload k the ?ayroil derjertment”.
3s. Smith said size never sqervised iis. Zowsle~
(:?ho did not-arrive until 1975) but h3d titerviewed ‘bee,- once
for em~lo~ent ti 1974 or 1975: “She came across. pite -dell
3UC she was up against stiff competition. 5Le had xo.rked at
I.G.a. snd a trust com>anr as cashier, snd did some accounrzg.
iie needed someone with eqerience ti accounting. i,t *‘at t*e
grade 12 was needed, and I don’t thin!z she .had grade :2. ,T!!Lero
‘dere t‘aen more qualified people.”
ih. Smith also said: “I think it’s an asset for a
supervisor to be able to do every job supervised. SUCL is q?
a-erience.”
In cross-exbation 2:s.. Smith said she had been
“a good friend of all these people but I did not associate
with them socially”;
i”Ir . Eeriry 2. iielscn, now 3udget Control Officer at
- 15 -
amilton ?sgch.iatric zos~itsl had See2 Zusiness btlice iuser-
visor at Prince Edward iieights from Xovemker, ‘79’7&, to Z-93-
ruary 15, 1980. AS such he sugarvised s3.i tke gz~evors exce?;
i-is. r‘isher, who had been-transferred to anoCher ofr'ice.
Loout 1978 the introduction of the, ,CA.ZS sTs;ea
(Gentrsi Accendsnce Recordbg +&em) made i; necessszy TO
assign a cierk NLl-time to strandace 311d the assigzzer.$
(afier a little trainbg on "Gq"j was fiiied 37 :':s. Zo~ksley,
ho had 'seen 'hired in 1975 as a 21er4 2.
il’;hough differen’; seogle ‘ad differ”=.; f~~=-$io~s
most Of the time, Yz. Zelson said "it .das mecessz-7 for ie -is
3pervisor to know how the Jobs .dere dome". ,,
After being given tke to r e-read 'his asgraisais
of three employees, Xr. Nelson made the foliowimg comments.
Ee had supervised KS. Dowsley for almost t-40 yea-s.
She was very good at 'aer work and it was not ker fault that
she did not get eqerience ti functions other thsz "kttend.j=ce".
ze had no knowledge of her 'cektig sz accounting course.
itr . Lielsoti said that. 3s. Gale was "e-erienced iz
every degartment except pa7". 3r. ;Card had Soob‘keegiag
experience, Jsrticularly on "lay", but did not get a chance
to acquire eqerience i.a other functions. 5s. ~1iSWOrtD was
"emerienced in aLl.depsrtments except actual posting on . t2e
posting machine”.
The witness then candid17 stated t-at in 2s o;Licn 1,
the contest would be betireen 21s. 'Gale and Iis. 3llsiiorth
"because of theti vast e-erience. ;is. E;11s:fort3 'rad t&e2
over from me at least twice during rn~ vacation. Yith Chat
experience, I'd have to pick 'her."
!k . Ellsorth confirmed thar. ske bad beer. AcTiS$
Supervisor on occasion. Mr. Scopne testified be 'sne% nothing
0 f !FlS . Ellstvorth~~ taking over in the absence of !Gr. Xeison.
It may have occurred before the arrival of 11x-. Scoyne, who
does not seem to have been satisfied :vith Xr. Xelson's Style
of supervision. *
. .
In brief, the result was far from betig unanimous.
iir. Thomas Z'ield, Xrector of 2rofessionsi 222d Community
Services at ?ri.nce Edward seights, was brought i3t0 se-mice
on the morning of Zarch 20, to substitite for snother person
who could not act that day. Xot having collaborated ,dith
Xessrs. Xye and Scone ti srepsration, ‘his agroach seems to
have been somewhat different and indeed his scoring 'Jas very
different. If composite scores in 3x:xhibit lj are totall?d,
the follo,winq rather remarkable figures appear.
1. Ms. Dowsley 129
2. Pk. Zogers 128
- 17 -
j- zs- 3ilswo=';h I?2
4 icr . . Ciasd 110
5. iis. Gaie IOj
6. x3 . Zither 99
It will be noticed t&t the r&kg above is -rer~
different from the 62,inion eqressed 37 Ar. IIe’,som+ :&XI ‘La? L
-- until one month before T&e com~eti;ion - - 3~;erV1seL aL.1
<he candidates except i’is. l’ishar.
it is also quite different from the ranki gi7e2
by ?i. Zield, *who -Jiaced lowest tte~ t-do zeogle :ir. :i?lso?
thought 3~ouJ.d be at the top.
I. Xr . 3ogers 46
2. Xs. Dowsleg 59
3. :$r - :.,' &?d 36
4. ix.. Fisher
35
5. % 3. ;!s- ~ll;stor;& ad
Pk.. Gale
33
ilr. Nge and Xr. Scope agpesz to have been evaluazizg
camdidates on a different wave-length from cir. Field. 3. Xiye’ s
‘. rS.biIlg:
1.
Es. Dowsleg 44
2. & 3. Xs. Zlisworth
snd Pk. Zogers 3a
xr .
4. Gard 57
5. Its. Gale
32
6. MS. Zisher
31
Hr. Scoyne’s scoriag :ias as follows:
1. xs. Dowsley 46
2. P!r. ,?ogers 44
- 18 -
The probable emlanation f,or the iaconsisteacy
Setweeo the rat-b,-s given by Lr. Xeison (in ii3 ts5tizorqj
ad -03 itessrs. :;J”, ;cone ad ~isid is t&t &I tLe
a~~1icant.s xere highly-regarded snd competent eqloyees xho
had performed xell, so that it ?:las eXtremei; difficult 70
score one ajove amother. The 0n.Q candidate consis;ently Lo:<
.,.,a2 ;‘.s . Tiaher, almost certakly because she ‘had been a:+ay
from the 3usbess Office for severti Je.zs. ::s. Sosisler was
rated fizs: only by Eessrs. Y3e azd Scoy~e, 2ot by Eessrs.
;“ieid ind i;~- lielson in ‘his testkony, of wtici~ zore iusz be
said. ‘The important o_uestion is :ðer one was clearly
better qualified than all the others. If i!s. Ilowsley was,
the Selection 3oakd’s choice was correct acd seniority is
krelevamt. If not, the choice was unreasonable and contrary
to the intent of Article 4.5 ia the collective agreement.
Some figures on the score-cerds give the 30~d
concern. ihder “Technical Knowledge”, Pk. Scoyme z.?arded
Xs. Dowsley 4 ?otits out of j for Zmowledge of “iccoumts
Payable” and 3 pobts out of j for ‘knowledge of “Accounts
leceivable/Trust Accounts”, although the evideoce is clea
that she ‘had no egeeriecce whatever in any of those functiors.
. . -er total under "ec~c2J ~pJo'~l&;i;*" :.,a3 15. ::s- ;li3.,,o=$t,
xCo had worked ia all the five functions aerrioned ‘,z< Z?icL
longer) received a total of 0z-Q 15.
_sost ia Zovezi~er, 1975, to accept a Clerk 2 _3ositi3m a; irizce
Edward 3eisb:s. She was very iigtiy r?comi~t&ed 37 ;Le Z.:Z.A.,
Office iknager h a latter dased ?&+ch 14, 1930. :,;-=et‘cer pr
duties at I.G.I. were comp~abia to t%ose reqtied 5 an -A-
stitutionai accountbg office is somew’hat doubtAl, but it is
~122~ that '"r " ‘I . Scoyne (much more than iir. 1;p or :L?. lieid)
xas greatly impressed by her I-;-A. eqerience.
30th Fir; Sye ad Xr. Scoyne emp’hasized im Yzeir
testimony that what they were’looking fcr was ” a&lb;;listra;i-re
ability”. ilr . Scoyne isFlied that sugervision had been za;‘;er
1s~ or “laisser faire” under i”.r. iielson’s supervision. :e
needed a supervisor capable of taking on ‘ris o*wn dxti.es <uZtig
an absence. Ze acknowledged that KS. Dowsley xas mot Tsn?.-
isr with all functions of the Business Office bu: Zelt Ler
---a
- 20 -
e;oerience at I.G.,. ;toxld enable her zo exrzclse fix su1;er-
vision. Ze referred to I-s. 311sxorth as a ve-ry coal;etest
cleric but tkought her ar,sroac;= zo adziirAstration xas ,-a:ke2
zigid. Xr. Rogers was ‘bighij qualified but ke xasn’ t suze
;<r. Bogers redly wacted the job - - - az iqression cocs’izzed
b3 the IacT; that ke xas tBe orrl7 ilas*dccessr‘U cm:ida;e :4%0 .&ii
no: grieve.
Coe ixorsistenc~ - - - or an0m.i.~ - - - or cotili;t
I - - - b ;he evidence also gves t‘tis 3oszd sone concerz. 7:.
:;je said the jeiection 3ozrd cobbled tkeiz scores al’:er ti.-;er-
T,ie.dbg the second candidate, Xs. 311siior5i. I’;,- , 3oyz.e sai5
1; uas &J’ter bi;lter+av&3g c&j ikst caodidase, IIs. 3owsleg sz5
that all the scores we re sot compared until %o 02 3kee tiaas
later. On the other ‘md, Xs. 3uth Tranks, iiaxger of 5’;tiZiq
for the Nkistry, said that scozes should a02 be ooqazed vztll
after ail interviews ha’re been coagleted. .
Xaother iaconsistency, as between zhe %~~loyez”s
wimesses, is that the menbers of the Selzczior? 3oard said
their scoring was based solely on replies to thei- GuesCions
at the interviews, aad that they did zot consider gezfozaixe
as?raisals. This is a little difficult to credit izi view 0;‘
the facC thzt pk. Scope certatiy hew somethi?q abcut all the
candidates end had also read their a??:aisals. Zowever , Us.
Franks said that perfdmame appraisals stiould be taker. bto
account in assessing the nerits of candidates. In this c&k?, it is
clear that manbers of the Section Board did not think apgrxisals should be
cmsideted, an opinion we find difficult to understand.
1 - 21 -
We think it regrettable that only three hours were
allowed for six interviews, with some time taken between
interviews for discussion. The evidence of the Selection
Board members as well as the grievors' tends to support the
contention that the questioning was not skilfully conducted
and certainly not "in depth". Even the written questions
(from which Board.members departed) were not well prepared.
For example: Questions 4 and 5 (under the heading "Super-
visory Experience/Abilities") were --- at least in the
written form:
What is the Collective Agreement?
What does it provide for both bargaining/Manage-
ment Employees?
The latter question is confusing (and confused) as
well as somewhat misleading, since "Management Employees"
(presumably those excluded from the bargaining unit) are
not provided for in any collec'tive agreement. The question
erroneously implied that management personnel are "provided
for" in the collective agreement. Since the applicable
agreement contains no less than 57 Articles and seven Append-
ices relating to the rights and obligations of the Employer,
the Union and employees in the bargaining unit, it would
require something approaching genius to state briefly what
it "provides for". More specific questions would have been
in order.
consistency in that gimn by the gzievors. Gz t& ot”,er ‘-2 -,
he said, the testtiony of selection ‘ooard senbers ‘had been
chexsctarized by evasiveness and iacousisteccies, azd oc iqoz-
cant points was i.c confiict with the >roceduzes zecomended -oy
Ls. - i+-&S .
Cn behalf of the Znployer, Es. Ycite subnicted
written argument, carefully reviewing nuinerous cases. i-ne
said the 3oezd should cot adopt the standazd ?ro?osed in
iiemark (suDra)and followi-d in .uiun (sucra) , and that the A. k 3.
The Selection 3oazd decided at some gotit to :e$
exclusively on the q.lesr;ions and sziswers at the12 btezviews
with the csndidates. Is 21s. ?ra&s said, keg oug;?t ;a iave
considered ?erformsnce asgraisals, which deserved to 'Lave
some weight ~J.X view of the fact that all cacdidafes Lad been
em?loged at Prince &hard Eeights for four gears 3r zore ---
some of them for zC.~e years sod one fo: 11 gears. ,Tbe
I Selection 3oazd also decided to igore the resees ou~lb~~g
I
Atice r. 2; tcome 2cd xr. :;,e z-e e=gka:ic tJ&z;
;kir ju&?ment x2.s based “solely” on the ingte;7vieWs, tte
c questions asked oecome ex’;re!jielg iqortm;. i’is. ?~ds ;‘ko~;git
she writ’;en cuestioos a?,‘ieaziq o* Zxhibit 72 >lere god ezoug‘k,
e.z opinion cot s&z--ed by this 3oazd. Some of ;-cp= see2 53 ,y;s
.,.jarj.q b cl~ity a< ,-elevate. 32 y.z; 2s i; =ay, :‘ce
eviderce is ciea- that the Selection 3oazd z.etioers ted 11~1:
ad’cere to ‘;.ne language ir, 2x’cijj.t 12, the pe_Dazed questions
were very freely re-worded 3zd nary of them were Cot asked 2t
all. If the result had cot been pe-determined, ad if tke
Selection 3ozd .,ras to rely “solely” (as they said.) 311 t5.e
iaterviews, then it was izicuaiaerrt ugoa the3 to asis such sea-CCL,-
questi0r.s as to elicit all the iaforzation zeeded to z&e o.o,~~c-
tive judgeaent oa the merits of each candidate. Sin 0~1’ evai-
uation of the evidence, this was not done.
A better asxoach would have jeen to ?rk?sze a file
on each candidate, izzluding the applicatioo and attached
history, all available _sezfomance appraisals a.cd letters of
reference, if any, and to study the file carefully Sefo:e each
interview. The “tzack record” of a candidate, ,-ood, bad or
2:CI;erience”. ~g~aectiy this is 20; the view sf :ir. Sccj--,e,
w&a 32ve I-s. ~oxsle;r a ;lisker score ‘;ha i-s. 31~s*,,o=t~ 1‘02
"&.:owiedge" of four Puzctions, althougk z.re former Sad 20
e:cerience im mast of them azd the :at;ar ‘sad >erZormed ti s2
but she gostizq lactic.
As for Pk. ZeLson s favouzable a>-,raissLs, Xz.
i.
Scoyne implied that Xr. Xelson was too aas?-gotig szik qoke
rather va@.elr of the need for “firz” a&kistratioz ad soae
changes he woxld like to m&e. Xo*ae+er he qecified 110 c2ztge
and there is 2ot am iota of evidence ti2a.t a37 serious problem
had arisen i?l the 3usiness Office or that its qarformance ‘Lad
beep anythins other tha sazisfactorg. .A3 evidence tLee-e is
suggests that the Office had functioned smoothly from tie ouzset
under the sqervision of 2.. Smith and I”;r. Nelson. icr . Scope
I-is. ;lJswort;?seemirq to ‘oe a 9o$si%iLitJ I’OT secozd ;1zce.
iii. - ?ie:d’s scoziq i 9*1.p.a*- igas curse -l&A -_-_ “, ‘3UZ ‘21 k3d caPa 20
3~35 k 3re_3a-atior.s for the competition azd ;ias 2ro.3ablr -3;
. i s cour2nS :iitL A”r. Scope’s 3es1ze “0 acquire a ssrong azd
. “firm” sagervisor. in en3 event, as Xs.?rz=lis ?oi=ted ou7
--- md fez obvious reasons --- sexes s’kould 30; ‘ze coq~~ed
until after all titerviews ‘nave beea coqleted. :‘his ,JOIJ?& 51
so even if the interviews i2L been con&ucted r’aizlg azd
thorougbljr ad al1 relevat kforzation aSout zte cszdidates
carefully satheered.
In s%ort, there were t50 may errors ad omiisio~s
k.~ the aroced;rce to ?erzir, a defensiSie restit. “‘ks is xot
to sag that the result was incorrect; it q have beea ccrzect.
That 3ossibilitg, bowever, does 20; outwei&h the kqezasive
necessity of cooductizg a coqetitioo ix accordxxe with
3ated at ,Toronto
this 26th da7
or‘ June, 1961
k.9. Jollif:e/ g.C.-?ice-~kai.zz2
“I concur”
E. R. O’Kelly \‘ember
R. Russell ::ezzer