Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0597.Brown.82-05-21IN THE ‘MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Linder - THE CROW EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGXX?ING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: OPSEU (Ms. Marion A. Brown) Griever -And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Emplcy?r P. G. Barton J. Best H. Roberts Vice Chairman Member Member For the Grievor: G. Fiichards, Grievance/Classification Cfficer Ontario Public Service Employees 'Jnion For the Employer: R. F.~ Rey, Regional Dersonnel Administrator Ministry of Health Hearing: April 5, 1032 CiMARD The Gcievor with a seniority date in.,October 1973 bras at t:;e relevant time a ~Clerk, 3,'inthe Department of Health, OHiP, Mississauga, '. .._ I,.~. Ontario. In May .df 1981 a'vac&y. arose 'in the' posjti,oii,of Clerk 4 General, Clerical Assistant,at that.of?icei. ~'This'ioiitiog Gas posted on August 5, . 2 1981; a competition was hel,d,;,and the Griever-yas unsuccessful. On September . 21, 1981 she.fi1ed.a gi%.evance.tihich' the'-part?,& h,ave'agreed is a grievance challenging. the selection;' ofrthe successful candidate'and the rejection of '" the Grievor. In short, it is,.styled.acompetition..grievance. The successful >I 3 candida'te E. Easton with a senio;ity date'in.1974, was present at the hearing . . and took part to the extent of &king dne question' of 'the Grievor who was testifying. ~,The,~Board,~as':coticerned‘that.she seemed tohave had reasonably _ short notice Of th'is hearing'but since'!she'i$,dicated that she was prepared to c. go ahead, the hearing hid'prd,ceed:. : "l" ,. . . . : The wo,rk that js~done .in the Health. Insurance Division. Mississauga I... ,, office,:is the processing of claims from doctorsBunder the OtllP Plan. A :; .,' .substantial number of claims are,handled by a large number of,Claims Clerks, : I a positions held by both the Grievor and E. Easton prior to May 1981. These Cl.erks assess -the.claims.according.to est,ablished procedures and regulations, and certain ones which are within certain preord$jned categoriesor which the Claims Clerks have difficulty resolving are forwarded,to a Group. Leader. The Group Leader-handles a number of these in the sense'of approving or rejec'ting certain clcims. ,The balance are sent by the Group Leader to the Clerical fissistant This person is the Assistant to the Medical Consultant,.a physician who has. .ultimate responsibiiitg within the of.fic,e for,approving claims. kcording to :. the.posting for the position of Clerical Assistant., the requirerents of tP,e jsb are as follows: I :'The successful aoplicant will be requireo to assist the Medical Consultant by performIn s:cn tasks as gathering research material, which is indicated as necessary by the Xedical Adjudicator, operative reports, computer transcripts, etc. _ Maintaining a library of local supplier and precedent decisions and advising staff of modifications. Obtaining ottier medical documents pertaining to the history (e.g. OHIP claim cards) and providi'ng-the Medical Consultant with patient case histories complied from these documents. Providing assistance to the Medical Consultant by liasing with physicians, practjtioners, medical secretaries when requested, to educate them in the use of terminology, etc. Answering incoming telephone calls from physicians, etc. and referring pertinent details to the Medical Consultant.” ,The qualifications are stated as: I "Grade 12 or equivalent; R.N. or R.N.A. qualifications preferable; at least 4 years' responsible clerical experience, preferably related, with good knowledge of OH!P procedures, OHIP computer systems and a working knowledge of Health Insurance Act and Regulations. Good knowledge of medical tetminoJogy." The position was posted as indicated,on August 5, 1981 and of 4 persons who applied for the position 3 were interviewed. The interviews were done by a Board composed of 4 persons: 1. J. Delaney, the Director of the Mississauga office. 2. Mr.Raliantyne, a Claims Manager who formerly supervised the Grieve:. 3. Dr. Knight, a newly appointed Medical'Consultant in the Mississauga office. ! 4. Dr. Cow, Senior Medical Adjudicator (head office). I The interviews took approximately l/2 hour each and each of rhe I persons !nter~:ew:ng ?Ii:h the exce,,- "'ion of Dr. Cow fillad out intervIew sc5re sneets. iIr. Gelaney rated the Griever as an ii and Ms. Easton 3s i?. !.:?: I I Cal?antyne rated :he tvo candidates equally. Dr. !:nich: rated the Griever as I .l '. ? dnd MS EdiZll 35 ‘3 ;'. jnfOrT..nJtCAl~/ ?r. (0~ ti;:C ':3: b.ees !!I5 SiCre I sheets and the total scores' for thet;#o candidates'based on the three-sets of score sheets which were-advanced Bs e'vidence were: 42. in the case.of 55. Easton and 40 in the case of the Grievor. The posftion ~taken by the Union at this hearing is that the selection,process was faultless.and based on.those score sheets and. evidence givenat the hearing,. the. Employer had failed to show that the person chosen was "demonstrably superjor, in qualificationsand ability". ~1 It is perhaps relevant' to note here that.the vote held.by the 3oard was unanimous infavour ,of the successful candida~te Ms. Easton. I The Grievor.qualified as',a.nurse with an R.il. and worked until 1960 as a nurse. She had some supervis.ory qxpqrience and,took an up-date course in nursing in 1974. She had at the time of the competition 8 years of claims experience...Hec latest-appraisal dated January 1981 puts her perfondnce level well above that on~ her last appra,isal and well above the district average. 'Her knowledge of work is stated to be very good, she is said to planand organize well in.order to meet deadlines, she seems.to get along well with docto,rs and secretaries‘she deals with, and shows interest in her work .ahd in the day-to-day:functioning of the group. Her 1978 appraisal . was 'equally good indicating that-she was performing.at,the district average as far'as number of claims; was on top of her,work and,always willing to help others, show potential to'be a.Group Leader., was well liked.by her 'peers .and Group Leaders and had the asset of knowledge.of nursi?~g~.;, Her other appraifais are equally~good., The successful candidate Ms. Easton is qualified as a nurse and a"~-R.N.A.,.and barked in nuwing tintii 1973. !n this capacity she was cot5 a head and a staff nurse. She,had:five years as a Cla\x Clerk and Setwee!? :loveniber 1900 and May of 1981 :<a~~ an Acting Gr-puo Leader-. 3ycause t3e t!;en Clerical Assistant and the Nedical Cmsultant bo:!~ stormed w0rkin.j <n :i:e . .,. office at cne same time, it was felt 0ecessdry :3 appoint an 3ccinq Clerical Assistant in.May. The Grie,:or was considered for this position but the p&-Son c!Iosen by Mr. Delaney was Ms. iaston. She was temporarily promoted to a Clerk J General and acted,in the cositi-n of Clerical Assistant until confirmed in that position as a result of a competition in September. Xe did not have the benefit of the appraisals for Ms. Eastcn although Mr. Oelaney indicated that insofar as .ability to get along ,with staff she was approximately,equal to the Grievor. As indicated ~by Mr. Seianey "they were all very good candidates". Mr. Delaney indicated that the selection of Ms. Eastcn was because she had more relevant experience, seemed to show more initiative, had more recent nursing background, and showed a good attitude insofar as potential to get along with Or, Knight was concerned. He was concerned that the answers that the Grievor gave to two questions at the interview were not as good as those given by Ms. Easton. On cross-examination the question was raised as to what extent the score sheets were important in the decision. Mr. Delaney indicated that although he was not totally happy with them he used them and took into account certain other factors which "amplified the situation." He did agree that tne score sheets generally identify the mst important factors and that as far as experience was concerned the score sheet "pretty weil covered" it. ICSCfar 35 personal suitabilitj was concerned ti?e candidates were,accordiag to Y.ir. 2e!ane:.~ relatively equa!. !: is of some note that both candidates scored ?i:rer +%;-!a::+-: Or good in tne four category rating is all of the six criteria c!losen. : r. 2 s .? crlteri.1 were dccertdble exnerience. \D:i:ty :o c3;?unicatC. Jbl:i::: :o .:?3; 1. -. with,a variety of assignments, ability to deal with staff and managenenc, attitude (general), and additional conments. It has been established by other cases before this Board,that .in competition grievances.the burden of procf is on..the Employer-to show"that the person selected was "demonstrably suoeri&.(Zuibr$cki 100/76). Most competition' grievances allege that the.selection process ‘itself was flawed in some way. That is not an issue here. We listen with some care to the evidence of Plr. ,Delaney and his discussion of the vario~us criteria used and how the two candidates rated with respect to them, and are unable to say that the Employer .' -.j has shown that the person selected was superior. 'It was acknowledged that the score sheets covered the relevant patters which were taken into account and we were not shown any additional evidence which was taken into account but .', ,. which was not reflected in the score sheets or the interview. The grievance filed by Ms. Brown.did make certain allegations concerning the fact that the - initial position was not posted in May and we echo that concern. We wonder if perhaps the selection of Ms. Easton was.;'nfluenced by the fact that she was', by September, the incumbent Acting Clerical Assistant. Although we have found that the two candidates are relatively equal in the terms' of Article 4.3 we have not found the Gr<evor was demonstrably superior to the person chosen. We are left with the difficult question of what remedy to award. Although it is not without controversy, the Board has on some occasions appointed an unsuccessful grievor to a position. The in Grievor>asked that by way of settlement there be a "canceilation of the appointment and a thorough review and selection made b:/ an independent oerscn or persons and based on the qualifica tions and seniorit;, of each candidate as at the date then position was vacated (Fiay 1981). To make this selection . . ,, Civ:l Service Conmission or ap;rooriare body, X?th ~ncwlec;s as to The requirements of the position. As mucn as possible tno jntar,,iew sncti;3 be so organized as to not discicse ihe experience gained s!?;e i?E; I by Ys. Easton. Any other procedure wil: unfair!y benefit :.Ys. EaStcn and make it possible for other Ninisteries or this one in Ott-,er cases to circumvent Article 4.3 5y appointing oersons to acting caoacities and failing to post within a reasonable length of time. tie do net wish to 5e taken as suggesting in a::; ;qay ::a: any of the members of the Selection Board in this case were acring in 3aa faith or in any improper way. Xhat has transpired is that the Erj:oyer has failed -3 _ satisfy us that the two candidates were not relatively equal. Even if the burden of proof were on the Grievor to estabiish "relative equal~t~",ve would have found this to have 5een done.