HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0230.Sleczkowski.81-11-14230/81
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIW BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: ,m . Eugene Sleczkowski Grievor
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation L
Communications1 Employer
Before: Prcf. P. G. Sarton Vice Chairman
&lr . L . Robinson Member
Mr. A. R. Rae Member
For the Griever.: Mr . G. Richards, Grievance Officer
Ontario Elublic Service Employees Union
For the Employer: Mr. R. 5. Itenson
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Civil Service Commission
iiearing: September 18, 1981
-2 -
On February 5, 1981 the Grievor filed a
grievance alleging that the selection of the candidate
to the position as Group Leader Technical Control, Data
Processing Technician #l, Computer Systems Branch,
Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Downsview,
Ontario, was unfair and unjust. The Grievor is and was
at the time of the filing of the grievance employed in
the same Computer Systems Branch as a Data Processing
Technician t5 (DPT#5).
In order to understand the facts it is
necessary to set out some background. The Ministry of
Transportation and Communications utilizes the services
of the Ministry of Government Services Downsview
Computing Centre. In one part of that Centre is a
room divided by partitions in which approximately
32 people work running the computer systems for the
Ministry. In addition, to the data entry employees
there are two groups of employees involved in entering
and running programs on the main computer in the Centre.
One of these groups, the Drivers and Vehicles Group
keeps track of drivers' records,.vehicle ownership
records, inspection stations, accidents, and other
matters related to vehicles. THis group daily up-dates
the records involving 30,000 to 40,000 changes of data
and provides on-line services to such people as
-3 -
police officers. The output from the daily computer
runs are used by approximately 300 clerical staff at
the Ministry on a day-to-day basis. It is clear that
this is a "tiae critical" operation.
The other group involved in the active use
of the computers is the En gineering and Administrative
Services Group: This is a somewhat less time critical
area in that it involves the running of programs dealing
with engineering concerning bridges, highways, transport
pianning, and financial aspects of the Ministry as well
as vehicle inventory of Ministry vehicles. It is in
this group that the Grievor works.
Over both these groups is a Group ieader,
Technical Control (DPT+7), the position which the
Griever sought.
The coordinator of this operation, ?eter Gear-y,
assume2 his present job in 1376. Xe had seventeen
empioyees working under him and realized that he needed
some intermediate administrative people. 240 CPT?7
positions xere established and filled. Phe Grievor
apparently sought this position in 1978, was inter-
viewed, but xas not chosen. Ye assumed that it was
because the successful applicant had a university
degree but did not pursue the matter further.
- 4 -
The position in question became vacant during
1980. A;I advertisement was placed in the circular
(,',~PICAL) which reads as follows:
"Peguired by the computer systems
branch, reglonal liaison and production
services.office, to supervise the daily
production runs of all computer systems for the ministry's transportation regulation
division, including the driver system and
the vehic?e registration system. Duties
include: supervising a group of production
control staff; scheduling worX flow and
staff shifts; reporting job status and
statistics: evaluating staff performance:
suggesting improvements in production methods and procedures; ensuring adequate
stocks of special forms: liaising with clients and system staff on job status
and problems. File TC-282HO.
"nualifications: L significant technical
data processing experience with a broad knowledge of the principles and techniques
of planning and controlling data processing
operations; proficiency in JCL an2 computer file management techniques; high degree of tact,- diplomacy with the ability to motivate subordinates,; ability to communicate effectively
orally and in writing, wit:h non-computer oriented staff and system speciaiists."
Fifteen persons including the Crievor and
the successful applicant John Psarros applied for this
position. The Griever aoolied on October 28, 1980 . _
using'an application form that he had previously prepared
for another competlt2on for a Computer 2royramner.
Mr. Geary and subsequentiy !$. TCO his predecessor,
looked through the applications and screened four people to
be interviewed. This selection .+as done primarily on the
basis of supervisory experience and secondly on
- 5 -
the basis of computer expertise. The Griever was not
chosen as one of four,primarily because his application
form did not make any reference to any supervisory
experience.
Interviews of up to one hour were conducted
by the two above mentioned persons with each of the
four candidates and Mr. Psarros was selected. It might
be noted here that Mr. Psarros had been employed in the
Drivers and Vehicles Group for about three years under
the supervision of Mr. Geary and his predecessor Hr. Too
The Griever, of course, had been under similar supervision
by the same persons for that length of time.
Following the interviews Xr. Psarros was chosen,
as indicated. The Griever testified that he became aware
of the results of the competition by deducing that
Psarros had succeeded when he stopped signing the
enlpioyees jook. Ue did not ask >!r. Geary iihy he had
not been chosen and subsequently filed a grievance.
The only other reievant fact seems to be that a short
time before this competition .M.r'. Geary had appraised
both >Y. Jsarros and the Griever and 'had appraised
the former as excellent and t:ne latter as competent.
T3.e test that we are to apply in matters of
this sort has been enunciated in a number of decisions
beginning xith Eohertv 43-7 6 (aeatty). The well-known
L'nion Carbide test has been adcpted by this Joard
- 6 -
on a number of occasions and applying that test the
facts of this case leads us to ask the following
questions:
1. Was there anything in the interview process that
showed that it was in fact a sham and that the
selection of Mr. Psarros was preordained?
2. Was the use of a screen based primarily on supervisory
experience an unreasonable practice?
Dealing with the first question we cannot say
that the interview was unfairly conducted. The interviewers
seem to have spent a substantial amount of time with each
of the candidates and canvassed the relevant areas. It is
hard fcr us to believe that they were merely going through
the motions at that time. Accordingly this aspect of
the competition seems to u* to have been faultlessly
conducted.
w i ts respect to the second question we find no
reason to fauit the procedure. The position specification
for the position sought (DPTS71 clearly statss that the
position is primarily a supervisory position. These
positions specifications can usually be obtained by
applicants and in the particular case it coulc! easily
have been obtained by the Griever as well as others.
The above mentioned advertisement clearly indicates
t:hat t:he duties include supervision and administration
‘.
-7-
P
as well as operating computers. Although stated qualif-
ications do not expressly require supervisory experience
it seems to us if a person had such experience he or she
would include it in the application form knowing that
might make the selection easier.~ In addition, the
Griever had applied for the same position in 1978 and
having been interviewed must have realized the significance
of the supervisory component of the position. Accordingly
we cannot say that the application of a screen based
on supervisory experience was arbitrary or unreasonable
or that that criterion was unrelated to the requirements
of the job. In the result the grievance is dismissed.
We cannot leave the matter without perhaps
giving some advice to the Griever and others who may
find themselves in his position. A look at the
application form of the successful applicant Mr.
Psarros, who 'was present at the :hearing, shows that
it is drafted with the position specification of the
position sought in mind. Any relevant experience
possessed by the applicant related to the duties of
the Fositi.on sought and quaiifications required is
set out ex?lizitly. The Griever's aoolication on the . _
other hand, was one Frepared for a different comnetition
and is not drafted wit, h the position soecifications of
the job sought in mind. Although the Griever may have
Sad some suFer7isory exae, rience prior to 1365,n.o reference
-8-
to that appears on the application form. Since these
forms are the first documents seen by the Employer
during a competition it makes good sense to put one's
best foot forward and to prepare them with some care.
DATED AT London, Ontario
this 14 th day'of Xovember, 1981
L
Vice-Chai,man
(se= AnAd-) I dissent
L. Robinson 24ember
&.x?/la/
4. a. Rae
Xember
I do not disa,jree wit’+. t:Se tsio ;onclusions Of t;;e -?aiorit-r I, .
awards 2-1 this case, namely:
i) that the interviews of the four leading candidates did
not indicate that the selection of ttie Lnccll3kent was ore-
ordiined, ‘cxt that on t;le contrary the:7 xere a11 fairl:J
^C?.d.:Cte&, ccd
ii) tllai; 9.e criterion ued to screen the applicants to ‘be
interviewee xas reiscnatle.
,
-2-
it seem to ze :kat those s?plicar.ts xi-,0 :.rish to avail tkenselves
cf it s’r,cule te affordec; t:?p osoortunitv of ~ear~?ly~k< for the
position in c.uestion ar,,d, for t’his yqose, that t:he Position
j>ecification (3hibit L) be made available to thea as a Tlide
5 3recarir.z their appiications.
I do not doubt that, if the g-ievor in nreparins :his earlier
application had had the Position jpecification 5 front of him,
the application xnich he submitted would have keen more clearly
. ayscte? towards the rec.uiremenis Of ti7.P ?osifior. s0il~:h.t ind more
?ersuas:ve. 1 ::-kin’< it 7;s fair to 366 t>.at r,;le sr-:pvor, .,qcrkir.g
‘S :-.e iii i;. zhe Se7artxent itself, ought to :?ave itncw7 atout the
Tcsition S?ecilicaCion ar.cl tax-., ’ p* steg to o‘ctak a co?:I. .‘&naze-
men= for its ?a*% s;-,ould also Ihave made .mcre effort t:han it
s--c=---tl:r Cici to maLie t;7is d0cu.mer.t .c.o’m to t:?e -I:,-- -.. i?y2~1;~; - ‘--mts,
-\\,