Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0464.Raymond.83-02-21IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Intervenors: R. Puntillo S. Dodaro Hearing: February 7, 1983 OPSEU (Ken P. Raymond) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer J. W. Samuels Vice Chairman s. J. Dunkley Member E. R. O'Kelly Member N. A. Luczay Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union E. Kulman Staff. Relations Officer Personnel Branch Ministry of Government Services : -2- The grievor was unsuccessful in his application for the job of Senior Network Operations Specialist in the Ministry of Government Services. The two successful candidates were less senior than the grievor, and the grievor argues that he is at least "relatively equal in qualifications and ability to perform the required duties." Therefore, he continues, at least one of the positions should go to him, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Collective Agreement. From the extensive documentation and testimony at our hearing, all of which have been carefully reviewed, the salient facts appear to be: 1. All three persons involved work at the Downsview Computing Centre, a facility operated by the Ministry for the use of clients around the Province. 2. The vacancies for Senior Network. Operations Specialist (Exhibits 6 and 7) resulted from a reorganization in the Communication and Computer Services Division in 1982, designed to provide better service to users (Exhibit 4). 'Previously, data base management and "first-line" user problems in the network of users were handled by people in the "on-line services" group (in which the grievor served as an On-Line Services Coordinator, with the classification of Data Processing Technician 7). Difficult network problems were turned over to the -3- Tele Processing Technical Support group. However, there were bugs in the assistance to network users, and it was decided to establish a position solely to service the on-line network. People filling these positions would need an intimate knowledge of the complex hardware and software used in the network, and would have to be able to solve problems quickly and efficiently in order to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the Centre's network services. The Senior Network Operations Specialist (Exhibit 7) would be doing some of .the basic work done previously by the On-Line Services Coordinator (Exhibit 2), and some of the more complex QrOblem- solving previously done by persons in the TP Technical area. We do not accept the griever's evidence that his job of On-Line Services Coordinator involved all of the functions performed now by the Senior Network Operations Specialist. We prefer the evidence of Mr. Adam, the Operations Supervisor, and Mr. Dark, the Supervisor of Hardware and Tele Processing .Technical Support, on this matter. As well, there are significant differences in the Position Speci- fications of the old On-Line Services Coordinator and the new Senior Network Operations Specialist. In part icular, the following tasks appear in the new job, but not in the old,- ,; . -‘4 - - ensuring prompt determination and resolution Of user problems by Operating teleprocessing- telecommunication diagnostic and control equipment to diagnose problem areas, taking corrective action by reinitializing software components, adjusting or replacing telecom- munication devices, and co-ordinating either vendor resolution of hardware problems, or technical support personnel to resolve soft- ware problems; - co-ordinating the implementation of established system failure contingency plans' related to network components; - Updating the network component inventories; - assisting clients in the inst.allation Of new equipment by providing guidance and over-the-phone instructions and tests: - providing effective network change control through review of QrOQOSed changes to the network and identifying potential impacts to the clients and recommending appropriate action: - assisting the Network Co-ordinator and Technical Support Staff in. the testing and implementation of new or revised network components; -5- 3. Following the reorganization, a competition was held in April 1982 for the new positions. There were five candidates and the two current incumbents were successful. The rest of the on-line services group became database technicians, the grievor becoming a Senior Database Technician with the same classification as he had previously (Exhibit 3). 4. However, the grievor filed a grievance against this competition and it was decided to rerun the inter- views. The grievor agreed to this remedy (Exhibits -5 and 101. 5. In mid-1982; the two incumbents and the grievor were interviewed again. The decision was the same as it had been before. The two incumbents continued in their positions. The grievor filed another grievance (Exhibit 1). 6. The interview process on the second occasion was unimpeachable. a. The candidates were each interviewed for around 45 minutes to one hour. We cannot accept the griever's evidence that his interview took only 15 to 20 minutes - firstly, because of the unanimous testimony of the members of the panel who testified at our hearing; and, secondly, because of the b. C. d. e. f. -6- questions asked and the apparent iength of time it would have taken to answer them. The questions (Exhibit 13) relate clearly to technical knowledge and problem-solving ability in the field of network services. Each candidate was asked all the questions and there was no prompting or leading. There is no substantial evidence that anyone knew the questions in advance. The three panel members who did the scoring were eminently qualified to judge the answers given. They were Messrs. Adam and Dark, and Mr. Ogden, the Supervisor of On-Line Services. The scores were arrived at by consensus and the resulting decisions were unanimous. 7. The overall decision-making process was unimpeachable. a. The panel considered the scores on the interview questions. The two successful candidates did very; very well; the grievor did very poorly (Exhibit 14). b. The panel considered the references of super- visors and others who would know the candidates" records and aptitude for the vacant positions. ‘-l- 'There seemed to be fairly general agreement that the grievor was doing an adequate job as On-Line Services Coordinator, but that the two other applicants had shown greater initi- ative and interest in network services. c. The personnel records were considered. In fact, they were of little help. d. Communications skills were considered and it was felt that all three candidates had no difficulty in this area. e. The applications were considered (Exhibits 8, 11 and 12). 8. The two successful Candidates were chosen because it was felt that they had a clear superiority in tech- nical knowledge and problem-solving ability related to network services. As well, they had demonstrated ( considerable initiative and interest in dealing with network problems before the competition had commenced. The grievor had not demonstrated this particular initiative and interest. 9. A careful review of the documentation does not - support the Union's contention that it shows that the decision was wrong. In particular, we have considered the three applications (Exhibits 8, 11 and 12), and two performance appraisals (Exhibit 9 for the grievor,. and Exhibit 15 for Mr. Dodaro). The grievor;s application (Exhibit 8) is. brief and terse. Both of the successful applicants included extensive resumgs (Exhibits 11 and 12). 'The two performance appraisals seem to indicate that both the griever and Mr. Dodaro were well thought of. In summary, we find that the Ministry ran the competition fairly, acquired enough relevant information to make a reasonable selection decision, and chose the best applicants for the vacant positions. The documentation and evidence does not support the griever's claim that he is,relatively equal .in qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. For all of-these reasons, the grievance is dismissed. Done at London, Ontario, this 21st day of Pabruary , 1983. 6:3220 6:3210 6:2520 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15: -9- LIST OF EXHIBITS Grievance Form, July 21, 1982 Position Specification of On-Line Services Coordinator .a, Senior Database Technician Organization Char.t Letter of June 15, 1982 Job Posting - Senior Network Operations Specialist Position Specification - Senior Network Operations Specialist Griever's application performance Appraisal, Raymond, 1981 Letter of June 16,.1982 Application of R. Puntillo m, S. Dodaro Interview questions Interview results Performance Appraisal, Dodaro, 1982