HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0091.Germaniuk.83-12-07IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: Grievor OPSEU (William J. Germaniuk
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation and
Communications) Employer
Before: P. M. Draper Vice Chairman
S. J. Dunkley Member
H. Roberts Member
For the Grievor: Xi .G.~ ,Paliare
Counsel
Gowling and Henderson
For the Employer: J. F. Braithwaite
Manager, Staff Relations
Human Resource Planning & Services Branch
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Hearing: October 19, 1983
r~- ‘- -2-
DECISION
The Grievor, William Germaniuk, grieves that in
Job Competition NWR-82-36 he was unjustly denied selection
for one of the three available positions in that his quali-
fications and ability are relatively equal to those of a
successful applicant, Gordon Sawiak, who is junior to him.
The positions in question are two as Senior Designer and
one as Senior Designer, Planning and Special Projects, all
classified Technician 3 Road Design (T3RD) and all in the
Planning and Design Section, Northwestern Region of the
Ministry. The competition was stated to be part of a re-
organization of the Section and was restricted to the
classified staff within it.
At the outset of the hearing, counsel to the
Grievor submitted that there had been no true reorganization
and so no vacancies created and requested that the Grievor
be heard on the question whether or not a competition should
have been held. After hearing argument by the parties the
Board denied the request, ruling that the matter before the
Board was that raised by the grievance as filed and carried
through the grievance procedure, namely, whether or not, in
Job Competition NWR-82-36, the Grievor had unjustly been
denied selection for one of the available positions.
The position specifications for the two new positions,
which became effective on December 1, 1982, were prepared by
D. B. Thomas, P.Eng., head of the Section. The purpose of
the positions is stated, in part, as "To provide technical
guidance and training to junior members of the work unit".
Amongst the duties and responsibilities described, and
accounting for thirty per cent of the incumbent's time, are
acting as a group leader; providing instruction in drafting,
i-
preliminary and detail design, and estimating techniques;
and assigning and reviewing the work of juniors. Amongst
the skills and knowledge required are ability to organize
and co-ordinate work groups; good verbal and written commun
cations skills; and analytical skills. Thomas.also drafted
the Job Competition Notice, dated December 6, 1982, and the
based on them to
were Technical
selection criteria modules and questions
be used in the competition. The modules
Skills; Problem Analysis/Decision Making ; Leadership/Judgement;
Interpersonal Communications Skills; and Organizational Skills.
They had weight factors of 10, 10, 10, 7 and 7 respectively.
Applicants were scored from 0 to 10 for each module.
Thomas acted as chairman of the selection panel,
the other members being two other professional engineers and
a member of the Ministry's Personnel Office. There were
twelve applicants, seven of whom were interviewed on
December 21, 1982. The competition process was explained
at each interview and all applicants were asked if they had
any questions about the position specifications for the two
positions and any preference as between the positions.
Individual panel members concentrated on questions under
-4-
different modules and all applicants were asked the same
initial questions. There was no written test. Some inter-
views took more, and some less, than the allotted hour.
Panel members kept separate notes and made independent
evaluations which were then compared, module by module. A
single rating of each applicant was then made by the panel
as a whole. The personnel files of the applicants were
reviewed in case they should contain information that might
warrant varying the ratings assigned.
Thomas testified that the Grievor did not answer
all the questions put to him, gave some incomplete answers
and seemed uncertain throughout his interview. He frequently
answered that he would refer to a supervisor a problem which
the panel felt he should be able to resolve himself. Sawiak's
answers were well thought out, well expressed and technically
accurate. Out of a possible weighted score of 410, the
Grievor received 253 points, the second lowest score, and
Sawiak received 400 points, the highest score. The other
five applicants scored 362, 341, 335, 307 and 249.
The appointments made as a result of the competition
date from January 1, 1983. The grievance is dated January 5,
1983.
If the evidence before us to: do-with~the’~ cOrnpetition is to
be accepted, it clearly cannot be said that the Grievor's
qualifications and ability are relatively equal to those of
Sawi
But
faul
uk. the successful appli
it is argued for the Gri
ty because the criteria
5 -
cant whom he seeks to displace.
evor that the competition was
appli ed and the questions based
on them are not relevant to the requirements of the positions
to be filled and that in a proper competition he would have
been a successful applicant. In support of that contention,
the Grievor testified that according to his own observations
the work being performed by the successful applicants since
their appointment is not of the kind about which applicants
were examined in the competition. In his estimation the work
does not require leadership, or interpersonal, communications
or organizational skills because no guidance, organization
or supervision of juni ors is involved; and that problem
analysis and decision making skills are as necessary at the
lower classification 1 eve1 (TZRD) as at the higher (T3RD).
In effect, the Board is asked to ignore the position spec-
ifications and the results of the competition and to find,
based on the Grievor's perception of the circumstances ob-
taining after January 1, 1983, that the Grievor's qualifications
and ability to perform the real work of the positions in ques-
tion are relatively equal to those of Sawiuk.
It may be that in the relatively short interval
between the effective date of the appointments.(January 1. 1983)
and the date of the hearing ( October 19, 19B3) the work
as described in the position specifications has not fully
evolved. But that is not to say that it is not the work
- 6 -
intended by the Employer throughout to be the work of
the newly created positions. The evidence before us does
not warrant the conclusions postulated by the submission
made for the Grievor that no reorganization in fact took
place; that the position specifications are spurious;
and that the competition was about non-existent positions.
We are not persuaded that the requirements of
the new positions that were created by the reorganization
and which the competition was conducted to fill are other
than those described in the two applicable position
specifications. Further, we find nothing objectionable
about the selection process as designed and carried out.
It follows that the results of the competition
as they affect the Grievor must stand and the grievance
is accordingly dismissed.
DATED at Toronto,~ this 7th day of December, 1983.
U--pb4F
H. RoberM, Member