Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0441.Pearce.83-02-10IN THE MATTER OF AN AREITPATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (Darryl Keith Pearce) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of.Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer R. L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman J. McManus Member W. J. Evans Member _L N. L&zay Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union A. R. Rae Manager Staff Relations Personnel Services Branch Ministry of Government Services February 3, 1983 . - 2 - DECISION In a Grievance dated July Zlst, 1982, Darryl Keith Pearce alleges that his "qualifications were not given due consideration on competition GS 127/82 contrary to Article 4.3 of the Collective Agreement". By nay of settlement, the Grievor seeks an interview and "satisfactory explanation why my qualifications were not acceptable". The position in question, that of "Mechanical Inspector - Classi f 1 in "Topical" as fo "TOPICAL/JOB MAR ,T ADVERTISING REQ ONLY U EST ication Service Officer 1" was advertised lows (Exhibit 3): File No. GS 127/82 Position Title MECHANICAL INSPECTOR Classification SERVICES DFFICER 1 Work Schedule 3.7 Closing date June 21, 1982 Salary range $515.04 to $553.53 per week Open or restricted RESTRICTED DELEGATED AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MECHANICAL INSPECTOR: LOCATION: 171 Judson Street The Property Management Branch requires a Mechanical Inspectbr tb arrange for and inspect the installa t repair and renovation of mechanical systems and equipment being carried out by contractors or reg staff in government owned and leased buildings wh i includes various accommodation alterations, minor projects and energy conservation programs. You w i prepare scopes of work a~nd sketches, estimates, .-. . - ions, onal ch capital 11 specltlcatlons for tenaer aocuments, ensure aanerence to contract documents, safety by-laws and building codes -3- and maintain schedules. Among your duties you will review contractors claims, progress reports and billings, resolve situations on non compliance and claims, recommend progress draws as well as participate in the preparation of budgets, assess useful life of equipment and systems and making recommendations. QUALIFICATIONS: Certificate of Qualification issued by the Province of Ontario in either plumbing; refrigeration/air conditioning or graduation from a CAAT in related mechanical program or certification from OACETT. Good knowledge of and experience in HVAC, relevant codes and regulations> Proven related experience in the inspection of work carried out by contractors and the preparation of reports. Above average ~verbal and written communication skills. Valid class "G" driver's licence. SEND APPLICATIONS TO: Ministry of Government Services Personnel Branch 9th Floor, Ferguson Block Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario M7A lN3 Charge to: Ministry/Agency GOVERNMENT SERVICES _.. Personnel Officer P. Fitzgerald Signature "Pi Fitzgerald" Phone 965-1146 ' Thirteen applicants including the Grievor submitted written applications. The Grievor's application was dated June 16th, 1982 (Exhibit 2). Six applicants were granted interviews on the rationale that their application forms demonstrated basic qualifications for the job. The Grievor was not interviewed as a result of the determination by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Ministry Staffing Officer, that the Grievor's written application failed to disclose basic qualifications for the job. . . - 4 - Donald K. Braddon was awarded the position by the Ministry. Mr. Braddon was notified of this Hearing and attended in person, and was advised by the Board of his rights to ask questions, introduce evidence and make sub- missions. Mr. Braddon did participate at the Hearing to a limited extent. In his testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he was respon,sible for reviewing each of the written applications to determine basic qualifications of each applicant. The decision to interview certain applicants ~was made by the, Regional Manager and the Manager of Construction following the initial evaluation by Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald made his determination on basic ,ions of each of the applicants by considering qualificat five areas (Exhibit 19), namely: (1) Ontario Certificate of Qualification; (2) HVAC knowledge and experience; (3) Knowledge of relevant codes and regulations; (4) Experience in the inspection of work carried out by contractors; (5) Preparation of reports. 1 .. , . . - 5 - Having reviewed the written application of the Grievor, Mr. Fitzgerald concluded that the Grievor failed to meet the basic qualifications in categories 3. 4.and 5. Accordingly, he made the determination that the Grievor was not qualified for the job. It was Mr. Fitzgerald's testimony that only two applicants were fully qualified for the job and that several other applicants were marginally qualified or difficult to assess. It is clear that Mr. Fitzgerald did not participate in the final decision as to which candidates would be granted interviews. Briefly,. the evidence indicated that the Grievor was educated in England and received a Construction Trade Diploma in England after having successfully completed a five was camp year plumb i licenced by leted a six ng apprenticeship course. He subsequently the Ontario Ministry of Labour after having week course at George Brown College. He holds a Master Plumbing Licence for the City application indicates, the Grievor has in the maintenance of government build i of Brampton. As his eight years experience ngs and twelve years experience employed by Training Co construction industry. He is in the presently the M inistry of Government Services at the OPP liege in Brampton as a Maintenance Plumber. In that capacity, he has responsibilities involving some 20 government buildings, and as his application suggests he provides a continuity of in the absence of the bui supervision of maintenance staff ldings manager. According to hi 5 testimony, the Grievor has applied for 20 vacancies since 1975 and to his chagrin he has received a total of only three interviews. His last interview was in Guelph in 1981 for the identical position of Mechanical Inspector. He was unsuccessful in that job competition. The Employer introduced no evidence. On behalf of the Grievor, Mr. Luczay argued that the Grievor's qualifications met not only the basic qualificati,ons for the job ins question, but also the necessary criteria for- the appointment. Mr. Luczay made it clear that he was not asking that the Grievor be appointed to the job, but rather that the competition be rerun. His rationale for that remedy was that the Ministry criteria for the interview had not been equitably applied to each of the applicants. On behalf of the Employer, Mr. Rae argued that the Ministry had acted properly in denying an interview to the Grievor as the Grievor did not possess the requisite basic qualifications. In particular, Mr. Rae alleged that the Grievor -7- had no experience in the inspection of contractors work which was deemed an essential ingredient of the job. In a determination of the issue, the Board has sympathy for both the positions of Mr. Fitzgerald and the Grievor. In our opinion, it is perfectly proper for the Employer to review written applications for the purpose of screening those applicants deemed qualified. There is no requirement that each applicant must be granted an interview. While the Grievor's written application is impressive in ma,ny respects, it is concise and somewhat brief in content, which in turn does not do justice to the Grievor's diversified background in both the private and public sectors. In the , Grievor's testimony, he stated in reference to the application fOrin "I tried to keep it short and concise". On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to assume that Mr. Fitzgerald or any other person acting in his position should be expected to be aware of the Grievor's diversified experience if it were not set forth in detail in the written application form. of the op prerequis In a review of the evidence in its entirety, we are inion that the Grievor did possess all of the basic ites for an interview and accordingly should have - a - been granted an interview. It is somewhat difficult to accept the fact that the Grievor was granted an interview in Guelph in 1981 for an identical position, and yet was denied an interview for the job in question. We do not feel that this is an appropriate case for a rerun of the competition as suggested by the Union. The sole issue in this Hearing is the entitlement of the Grievor to an interview. In the instant Grievance, the.results of that interview should be communicated in writing to the Grievor indicating what areas if any are deemed deficient. The issue of the Grievor's suitability for the job 'viz a viz the successful incumb remain Accord I nt is not the issue before this Board. ,That issue must the subject of a further Grievance, if .deemed appropriate. ngly, this Grievance sha 11 be allowed. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 10th day of February, A.D., 1983. 6: 2100 .>cLz1 L e- 7 R. L. Verity, Q.C., Vice-Chairman