Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0687.McGarrell.82-06-14i Between: IN TEE XATTER OF Ali MBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGBIXI?iG ACT Before THE GRIEVAKCE SETTLE?JE?IT BOBRC Be,fore: For the Grievor: For the Employer: OPSEU (Reuben McGarreil) Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer P.G. Barton H.E. Weisbach li.W. Preston Vice Chairman Uember kiember 3I.A. Green, Counsel Golden-Levinson E,. Moses Senior Personnel Administrator Ministry of Government Services Hearing: -2- Reuben McGarrell~ filed a grievance on August 31, 1981 alleging that he had been unfairly denied a promotion in a job competition for the position of Clerk 5 - General in the Ministry of Government Services. He has a seniority date of January 30, 1978 and at the time of the compe,tition was a Clerk 4 - General in the Corporations Tax Branch, Ministry of Revenue. The successful applicant,L. De Souza, with a seniority date of May 12, 1980 was at the time of the competition a Clerk 4 - General in the same department. At the time of the competition both the Grievor and the successful applicant, who took part in the hearing before this Board-were employed in the Corporations Tax Branch as Collections Officers.. This means that they spent their days trying to collect delinquent accounts of up to $5,000 each. They were ~also involved in correspondence, telephoning, meeting corporate directors and lawyers, preparing documents, and in other mattersexcluding the..giving of advice concerning the running of business, which are normally involved in the collection of delinquent accounts. The Ministry of Government Services was seeking a Clerk 5 - General in the General Collections area, relevant to all Ontario~ Government Mi.nistries. Thus, the work that the successful applicant would be doing would be similar but would cover a wider range of Ministries than that of collections in the Corporations Tax Area. In the posting of the position the required qualifications were stated as follows: "Proven progressively responsible related experience; ~1 _. thorough knowledge of pertinent Acts, e.g. Bankruptcy Act, Wages Act, etc.; good mathematical ability with experience in an accounting environment; excellent communications skills; tack, discretion, diplomacy and fairness." -3- Following the posting of the position approximately six persons applied. Interviews were held by a Board composed of R. Cardwell, Chief Administrator - Collections, MGS; Mr. Francis, from Mr. Cardwell's office, and J. Stubbs. Two of the members of the Board, Cardwell and Francis scored the candidates and~these scares were used along with an administrative rating manual commonly used in the Ministry, to give candidates a total score. All of the candidates were asked the same questions, and the answers to these questions were noted on sheets by all of the members of the Board. Unfortunately we did not have available any evidence concerning Mr. Francis or his evaluation of the candidates, but we did have oral evidence from the other two members of the Board. Following the interview, there were three candidates who were seriously considered. These had been ranked at 426, 429 (the Grievor) and -508 (the successful candidate).Three of the persons interviewed were below 400 and as was indicated in the evidence they~were below the minimum screen and 'were not.considered further. Having made a tentative decision; the Board contacted Personnel, and checked the Personnel files of the three : concerned for "aberrations". We have found this to be a very difficult case-and we feel it only fair that we set out in some detail some of the evidence and our problems concerning it which has. given us some difficulty. Both the Grievor and the successful candidate had some considerable collections experience. This was acknowledged by the Interview Board in that they both rated equally in that category. Accordingly it is not necessary to go into the collections experience of both at this time. Insofar as apprbisals are concerned, the Grievor filed appraisals starting with one dated.April 27, 1978 in which he was rated above average or average in all -4- categories. His April 1, 1978 to March 31, 1979 appraisal is similar. It suggests that the quality of work produced is good as is quantity. In the subsequent appraisal he was also rated.satisfactory - average in all categories. It was noted that he was absent six times for a total of 22 l/2 days. His final appraisal, by Mr. Wilkinson dated April 22, 1981,rated the Grievor as satisfactory - average in all categories. It was noted that he had been absent ten times for a total of 16 l/2 days during the period. It was noted "number of times absent is higher than desired but was due mainly to a case of pneumonia with some lasting side effects'!.With respect to quality of work it is noted "Mr. McGarrell's work is improving as'he becomes more familiar with collection techniques and branch requirements". With respect to quantity of work it is noted "a good quantity of work is now being produced as Mr. McGarrell is better organized and is becoming more conversant with Branch system." With respect to effective use of working time it is stated "Mr. McGarrell is applying himself well and is becoming significantly more effective." The Grievor was a highly'impressive witness with considerable public relations ability. He gave full answers and it was clear that. he knows his job very well. Occasionally he tended to wander and go on a bit but on the whole~he was as I say, impressive. He was ~quite concerned that the Selection Board may have misunderstood his collections experience. We are satisfied that the Board may well have underestimated the amount of experience he had but since he and the successful candidate both were given the same raw grade on that category, no substantial wrong occurred. The Chief Administrator, Collections in the Ministry of Government Services, R- Cardwell, a member of the interview board, ga've evidence as well. He indicated that he was more impressed at the interview by the successful applicant because she was, in her answers, crisp, clear and concise. She answered better and showed goad reasoning ability. On balance he found the successful candidate to be a 'little more intelligent and much better able to handle problems. The primary basis for distinguishing betwee,n the Gri.evcr and the successful applicant as far as Mr. Cardwell was concerned, seemed to be that the Grievor did not show the range and flexibility necessary to handle the wider range of collections problems faced by all the Ministries and not just the narrower range faced by the Corporations Tax Branch. He indicated that many of the answers the Grievor gave to the questions,were a reaffirmation of the sort of work he had done in the Corporations Tax Branch. On balance he stated that although they had remarkably similar experience, the successful candidate had demonstrated a better use of the experience. He indicated that he found the Grievor to be flippant in some of his answers. Nith respect to his scoring of the Grievor, we are a-bit concerned that h‘is impressions of the answers given by the Grievor to some of the questions is not the same as the impression received by J. Stubbs. In particular with respect to question 1 , where he indicates that the Grievor failed to note that a licence check would be available, J. Stubbs note's indicated that the Grievor referred to making a check of MTC. This would indicate relevant licence information. He also appears to have made a.note concerning a flippant remark to a particular question.. J. Stubbs has that remark as having been made in response to another question. The other member of the interview board who testified, J. Stubbs impressed us with her candor and ability. She made notes concerning the answers given to all of the questions, although she did not score the candidates. -6- It was her evidence that the successful candidate was ratid more highly because she demonstrated~ greater knowledge and experience. She was a far better communicator and in general her responses were of a better quality. She preferred the successful candidate because it was clear from her responses that she was logical, clear, and precise. The Grievor tended to go into far too much detail, was verbose, and less analytical in approach. Insofar as tact and diplomacy is concerned, a factor which was ranked quite highly, the successful candidate seemed to her to be superior. I got the impression that insofar as the grading is concerned J. Stubbs might have been considerably more generous with the Grievor than was. Mr. Cardwell. The absence of the rating sheet of Mr. Francis, made our job somewhat more diffi&lt, although it is clear that he also ranked the successful candidate higher than the Grievor. Although Mr. .Cardwell indicated that attendance was not considered as relevant, J. Stubbs indicated that the members of the board did take the ~attendance of the Grievor seriously under consideration. The relevant question before us is whether or not the Grievor had shown himself to be "relatively equal" insofar as qualifications and ability to perform the required duties are concerned. He do not accept the Union argument that once a person ranks over 400 and has their personnel ~_ file checked, they are relatively equal to somebody else' concerning whom the : ~ same procedure is followed. It is true however that when ascertaining relative equality, one should not "nit pick" in order to find differences between candidates. klhere scores are approximately equal or are within a narrqw range for example,relative equality may be shown. -7- Insofar as raw scores are concerned, we are not prepared to rely on the scores of 508 and 429 for the successful candidate and the Grievor respectively. Because of the-discrepancies in evidence between Mr. Cardwell and J. Stubbs, we feel that the scores awarded should perhaps have been somewhat less disparate. From the comments of the witnesses in evidence however and from our observations of the Grievor and the successful candidate,both of whom gave evidence, we are not satisfied that the,y were relatively equal at the time of the competition. This seems to us to be a case very similar to the recently r~eported case of Cooper 215/79 (Pritchard) in which two highly qualified persons were involved. Selection from among several candidates, all of whom could do the job in question, is never an easy task. However, taking in mind the evaluation of Mr. Wilkinson, our impression of the range of the Grievor's talents, and having heard the evidence of two of the members of the Selection Board, on balance the.candidates were not relatively equal and the grievance is dismissed. DATED AT London, Ontario (ky of June, 1982 .9:& ,; Chairman “I dissent” (see attached) H.E. Weisbach _. Member : DISSENT ,.....T Xhile I agree with most of the observations jade in the award, I regretPJlly must dissent from the decision of the 3oard. it was obvious that grievor has considerable more seniority than the succesful candidate. It was also obvious that the evidence of the two interviewers varied a great deal and I believe that the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the griever. The grievor has proven that he has had some considerable experience in the field of collections. It is true, that his answers before the board sometimes strayed away from the subject, but nevertheless he.knew the subject well and he knew the responsibilitib involved in the job. In the light of all this and inthe light of his considerable seniority over the succesful candidate, it is my opinion that the grievance should have succeeded. Toronto, 3une 4th 1982. H.E. Weisbach Member