Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0492.Hill and Campbell.84-10-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTNE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (D. Hill & D. Campbell) For the GrIIor: For the Employer: HearirtgZ and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) R. J. Roberts K. O’Neil .A. Stapleton Vice-Chairman Member Member Mr. 7. Moore Grievance Officer Ontar’io Public Service Employees Union Mr. P. Mooney Staff Relations Officer Civil Service Commission January 30, 1984, February 28, 1984 and May 30, 1984 Crievor Employer F DECISION 2. This arbitration arises under. Article 24.2.3 of. the collective agreement, which. relates to the filling of job vacancies with surplus employees who are "qualified to perform the work". In their grievances, the two qrievors claimed that the Ministry of Labour violated this provision of the collective agreement when the grievors were refused the position of Occupational Health and Safety Officer. For .reasons which follow, the grievance of Mr. Campbell is dismissed, and the grievance of Mr. Hill is allowed. Until early 1983, the two grievors were employed by the Ministry of the Attorney-General as Driver Improvement Instructors. In this capacity, they lectured to minor traffic offenders and showed them safety films: Both grievors had been performing these' duties for a period of about 5 l/2 years. On February 25, 1983, however, both qrievors were declared surplus. It seems that the Ministry of the Attorney-General had reached a decision to consolidate all Driver Improvement Centres into one Centre located on Sheppard Avenue. This resulted in the elimination of the qrievors' jobs. The Ministry of the Attorney-General did provide the qrievors with some assistance in finding other suitable positions, particularly within that Ministry, but apparently c . 4. and ensure correction of hazards associated with industrial machinery operation, use of chemicals and industrial processes: prepare accurate reports of inspections and accidents. You twill: advise management '. and workers in industrial and '. institituional operations on all aspects of health and safety; conduct health and safety audits; perform duties re accident. prevention and the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. . . . Qualifications; experience and educational background in, occupational health. and safety; progressively responsible experience in industrial and institutional workplaces; extensive knowledge of the operation of industrial machinery: . understanding of the problems associated with the cause and prevention of industrial accidents and health hazards; knowledge of then Occupational' Health and Safety' Act; excellent interpersonal and communication skills; conflict resolution skills acquired through experience as a union steward or supervisor, handling work refusals or grievances or participating in labors negotiations; valid driver's licence. The grievors wondered why this ad should appear if the positions indeed, were being frozen pending consideration of the applications of surplus employees. Shortly thereafter, the grievors were requested to submit to Ms. Finnie their applications and resumes, along with a covering letter setting forth the reasons why they believed they could do the job of Occupational Health and Safety Officer 2. Both qrievors used the April 29 ad, above, as a basis for their covering letters. This was the only information that they had regarding the requirements of the job at that particular time. It was not until shortly before May 11 that the qrievors were supplied by the Ministry of the Attorney General with the Position Specification for the job in question. I 5. Both grievors testified that they thought that, they had done well in their interviews. Nevertheless, one month later they were informed by the Ministry of the Attorney General that they had not been successful. Both were shocked. Mr. Hill requested and received an interview with representatives from the Ministry of Labour. This took place on June 22, 1983. He was not satisfied with the reasons that were given for his rejection. He discussed the matter .with the others. Thereafter, on June 17, 1993, Mr. Campbell grieved. On June 27, Mr. Hill filed his grievance. The present proceeding followed in due course. At the hearing, considerable testimony was elicited regarding the .backqround to the job of'Occupationa1 Safety and Health Inspector 2 and the way in which the interviews were arranged and conducted. It seems that this was the first occasion upon which the Ministry attempted to fill vacancies in this classification according to a.new Position Specification. Prior to the issuance of this new Position , Specification, there had been two separate types of Occupational Health and Safety Officers: one for industrial workplaces, and one for institutional workplaces such as hospitals and educational institutions.' The latter type of officer was known as an Extended Coverage Officer. This title derived from the fact that in 1979, the Occupational 6. Health and Safety Act was extended for the first time to institutional workplaces. For some time after this extension of the coverage of. the Act, the Ministry essentially ran two parallel inspection systems. In one system, Occupational Health and Safety Officers with 'industrial expertise took care of industrial workplaces; in the other, .Occupational Health and Safety Officers with 'institutional expertise took care of the inspection of institutions. This proved to be too expensive, so in 1981, the Ministry eliminated the distinction. All Occupational Health and Safety Officers became "composite" officers with responsibility to inspect both industrial and institutional workplaces. When the Ministry 'decided to fill the jobs for which the grievors applied, it was the first time that there had been a recruitment for a "composite". Occupational Health and Safety Officer 2. .In order to reflect this change, the Ministry, as previously noted, issued an amalgamated Position Specification. In composing the ad for the job, the Ministry amalgamated the criteria from previous ads for the two separate positions and also made, reference to the Position Specification. The same procedure essentially was fo~llowed with respect to setting the questions to be asked during the interviews, -- I. as well as in establishing a weighting system for these questions. Mr. Thomson, the Regional Manager of the Toronto West Region of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch, testified that he and Ms. Rinnie established this weighting system from referring to that used by previous Boards. They also referred to revised hiring criteria for the coniposite position that had been established in 1981 by Mr. J. Greenlaw. He said, "Just prior, to this Board we took Mr. Greenlaw's criteria, [and] made minor adjustments. .,;. We did not do a complete re-think because Mr. Greenlaw had amalgamated' the criteria at that time: . . . We made some changes in the evaluation. I. agreed with the allocation of points that were set by Mr. Greenlaw." There was one more first for this particular Board:' The cut-off j?oint for'the candidates was raised from 60% to 67%. According to Mr. Thomson's testimony, this was something that had been decided at about the same time as the amalgamation of the two job descriptions. He said, "The cut-off earlier had been 6b% prior to 1981. It went to 67% in 1981. . . . We found that when it was at 60% we had difficulty with employees. They were not coming up to the standard required for .the job. It was determined that because of the high profile of Occupational Health and Safety Officers, we should only have well-qualified people. So we decided on a minimum of two-thirds. We were \ U. wafter the top one-third, yes." The grievors and their surplus colleagues, apparently, were the first candidates to whom then higher standard was applied. A ~mino,r change that occurred just .before the first candidate was interviewed involved a re-allocation oft points between the criteria of "quality of application" and "conflict resolution skills". Three points were taken from the former, reducing its value from 5 points' to 2 points, and added 'to the latter, increasing its value from 8 to 11 points. There were four persons on the selection board: Mr. Thomson; Ms. Finnie; Mr. P. O'Reilly, Manager of the Scarborough Office of the Industrial Health.and Safety Branch; and, Mr. J. Creery, the Regional Manager, Industrial Health and Safety, London. Of these, only Mr. Thomson was,called to testify on behalf of the Ministry. According to Mr. Thomson little preliminary inquiry was made regarding the qualifications of the grievors. The members of the board solely relied upon 'the interview and the job application of each candidate. The board did not make any reference to the personnel file of either grievor. There was no attempt to contact previous supervisors of 1 either grievor. No references were contacted. Mr. Thomson described the procedure for each interview as follows: "The interviewers marked down notes that theytook 9. independently. All interviewers were involved in asking some of the questions, and in asking supplementary questions to get further information. At the end of .the interviews the board reviewed each questi on to ensure that each member of the board had all of the information, and in some cases we would discuss some points because of some misunderstandings. There [was] a discussion of why there [wash] a disagreement in scores on a particular point and it [was] from that discussion that . . . a board member may or may not [have raised] or [lowered] his marks based upon further information ~that was received. Then the composite score [was] totaled up and averaged as a board score." . With respects to Mr. .Campbell, the .scores recor.ded by each member of the board fell well below the cut-off point of 67%. Mr. Thomson testified that Mr. Campbell received .such scores. for a number of reasons. He said, "His work .experience wa.s solely in the Canadian, Armed Forces, Vehicle Operating Transporation Section. He did not relate to any heavy industry nor to any light manufacturing work area. \ He did not indicate any experience of working in schools or having any, health care dr other institutional type background." Mr. Thomson further stated, 'I In looking into the Occupational Health and ~Safety Act aspects, for the last c 10. . five years Mr. Campbell had no involvement with the Act. He worked for the Attorney-General. . . . His background in the safety field was in that of vehicle operation safety rather than occupational health and safety of workers. . . . As to hasard recognition ,and control, . . . he had some knowledge of what ,thresbold limit values meant . . . [but] he did not discuss designated substances or other chemical and biological substances. Nor did he talk about the control method used to control these hazards in the workplace, e.g., 'ventilation controls -- local and general exhaust systems, eye protection, protective clothing, etc." Mr. Thomson then went on to describe further shortcomings in Mr. Campbell's background regarding physical agents such as light, heat, vibration, stress or noise. Mr. Campbell, apparently, only addressed noise from aircraft and methods of protecting against it. He did not discuss control methods such as protective equipment and clothing when~ working in hot or cold areas, or methods of eliminating or reducing vibration such as rubber padding, etc. There were similar deficiencies in Mr. Campbell's. I background, apparently, in the safety aspects of operation of machinery and methods of guarding against injury on such machinery. He had little, if any, formal. training in occupational health and safety. His .knowledge of the . . Occupational Health and Safety Act was limited to what he had read in it and in the regulations under the Act. Summing up, Mr. Thomson stated, "These are the main areas that we felt were deficient 'when reviewing Mr. Campbell's resume and results that came through during the interview.,, . Mr. Hill, on the other hand, fared much better than Mr. Campbell. For all intents and purposes, two of the four scores he received placed him~ator above the two-thirds 'cut-off point established by the Board.* Nevertheless, the significantly:lower scores recorded by Ms. Finnie and Mr. Thomson -- 58 and 56, respectively -- brought the 'Bpard' Average for Mr. Hill below-the cut-off point. . Mr. Thomson gave several reasons for scoring Mr. Hill in the way in which he did. He said, "Mr. Hill had some experience in an industrial setting but this was over 20 years old when he was working for Vickers, where he took his technical training.' Most of his military career was *Mr. O'Reilly gave Mr. Hill a score of 68%. Mr. Creery must be taken to have given Mr. Hill a score of 66%. There was some confusion with respect to Mr. Creery's score, apparently because of a failure on his part to re-allocate to the criterion of ~"conflict resoluticn skills" the three points taken from the criterion of "quality of application". In the absence of any testimony from Mr. Creery as to precisely what occurred, these three points must be considered as having been awarded to Mr. Hill, thereby raising to 66 out of 100 the original score of 63 out of 97 which was recorded by Mr. Creery. , *L. as an officer in the Mobile Equipment Branch. . . . He was a Steward in OPSEU. He did have some supervisory background. But he had not worked in any institutional . . . setting . . . The majority of his safety involvement was in transportation and operator safety. He had very limited ,knowledge except for 20 yearsago in the field of Occupational Health and Safety. Although he did have workers working for him. He was not directly involved in a large number of investigations but was required to review aircraft and .vehicle accidents, incident investigations.,, Mr. Thomson ,went on, " In the area of hazard identification and control, . . . we were looking for toxicity, flamability, as discussed.earlier. Mr. Hill was aware ,that some~ of these substances had been designated in 'Ontario. He mentioned some of these. He also discussed the hazard to workers in particular in a .garage, the carbon monoxide danger. He talked briefly about some of the hazards related to designated substances. He did not identify other chemical, biological substances that he had knowledge of. He did not expands on some of the control methods which can be used to reduce or eliminate hazards in the workplace, e.g., engineering controls, ventilation and personal protertion equipment.,, The next weak area, according to Mr. Thomson, was in operation of machinery. Mr. Thomson stated, "We were looking for personal knowledge end work experiences ,in industrial , 13. or institutional workplaces. He did list several pieces of machine shop type equipment with which he was familiar, e.g., press, lathe, drill presses. But he did not talk about extractors used in laundries., punch presses; brake presses, chemical mixing machines. Other than a cover-type guard for pinch points~or gears he did not discuss the methods used for guarding machinery in the modern workplace." As to safety courses in occupational health and safety, Mr. Thomson acknowledged that Mr. Hill had attended courses dealing with occupational health and safety, but not under the'ontario legislation. As to knowledge of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations, Mr. Thomson stated, "Mr. Hill had read the Act and had a* good perception of the intent of the legislation. He gathered that it was an internal responsibility system, with responsibilities of employers and workers,. etc. This could have been from another source. he did not have a good knowledge of an inspector's role per se. - Just .what he gathered from reading or. conversation." As to past work experience. Mr. Thomson stated, "Mr. Hill had spent the past 5 years with the Attorney General's Department and the 20 years before that with the Military. The Military does have safety rules and regulations that are similar but arenot applied as they are by the Ontario Grovernment. These were Mr. Hill's shortcomings." 14. At the hearing, several issues were raised. The first of these involved a submission from the Union that the entire selection process was invalid. The gist of this submission was that to protect the rights of surplus employees under Article. 24 of the collective agreement, the Ministry should have suspended the competition for the positions:. otherwise, knowledge, on the part of the interviewers of the existence of ,more highly qualified applicants would prejudice the evaluation of whether one or more surplus employees was ‘"qualified to perform the work.,, Thisis;not a new issue. It was raised and extensively argued in previous arbitrations before the Grievance Settlement Board. See Re OPSEU (Policy Grievance) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications (19831, G-S-B. #206/83 (Samuels): Van Steen and Ministry of Industry and Tourism (1981); G.S.B. #333/81 (Draper). In the latter case, the Board said: It is, however, submitted that the interview was "coloured" by its juxtaposition to an open competition for the new position. We do not believe that the fact that the Employer proceeded with the competition was prejudicial to the Grievor. The circumstance of a competition being in progress did n@t interfere with her rights as a surplus employee. . . . In our opinion, the Grievor was not made to compete with the applicants in the competition by reason of ~being put ~to the same test. There is no evidence that her performance was measured against that of any applicant. i.. Id. at 12-13. - - 15. It was not considered to be appropriate to address the legal .aspects of the issue because the procedure adopted by the Employer did not prejudice. the rights of the grievor as surplus employee. The same may be said of .the case before us. Mr. Thomson testified that neither at the interview stage nor when the grievors were notified of their rejection did the members of the Selection Board have any exposure to .non-surplus applicants. There was no access to any applications from such employees. No interviews relating to the competitions were conducted- at 'any time before the grievors received notification of rejection. The, evidence did not sustain any inference that the grievors might have been prejudiced by being made to compete with non-surplus applicants. Turning, however, ..to the procedure followed by the Selection Board, there appear to be certain deficiencies in the way in which the qualifications of the grievors were evaluated. The grievors were surplus employees and were . entitled to be evaluated as such. In making such an evaluation, it would seem appropriate to expect the interviewers to have made every reasonable effort to ensure that they had before them all relevant information bearing upon the qualifications of the grievors to perform the work. Because the evaluat ion was conducted w ,ithin the context -_ 16. of the job security provisions of Article 24 of the collective agreement, it does not seem unreasonable to expect interviewers to have exercised a higher degree of care in this regard than in the case of a competition under Article 4. An application under Article 24 of ~the collective agreement involves a very serious determination. It is not a case of promoting a government employee who already has a job. It is a case of finding a' job for a government employee who, through no fault of his or her own, no longer has one. In the present case, the efforts of the interviewers to inform themselves regarding the qualifications of the grievors fell below even the standard of care to be expected with respect to job competitions. As was stated in Re Cross and Ministry of Transportation and Communications (19821, G.S.B. #339/81 (Jolliffe): More difficult to understand is the reluctance or unwillingness of Ministry officials to inform themselves more fully about candidates interviewed. This is not a question of previewing hundreds of files from a,11 over, as Mr. Pettifor suggested. In this particular case it would have been extremely simple to look at the griever's annual evaluations, and equally simple to ask the Ministry of Natural Resources in the same area for information about MnLamb and his performance. . . . Even if the true destination was safely reached, the driving procedures used to get there were neither correct nor efficient. If selection boards object to being well-informed about candidates and persist in relying almost .entirely on interviews, they are over-estimating their own powers of judgment . 17. on sight, they are using a primitive approach to personnel selection and invite more contests before this Board. . . . Id. at 15. The Board strongly suggested that even in a job competition, the members of a selection board should undertake to inform themselves fully about the candidates. With respect to the grievors, the members of the Selection Board made little in the way of preliminary enquiry regarding the qualifications of the grievors. They solely relied upon the .interview and the job application of each candidate. There wasp no reference to personnel files; no attempt to contact previous supervisors; and, no attempt to contact references. While Mr. Thosison did not offer any justification in his testimon$ for these omissions, it was suggested by counsel for, the Ministry that these omissions were not serious in the case of the grievors because it seemed highly unlikely that any relevant information would have evolved from these cont,acts. In this regard, he emphasized that in the 5 l/2 years immediately preceding their applications, the grievors had ,been employed in an unrelated field and as such their personnel files and supervisors could not have yielded much information that might have been helpful to the grievors in the main areas in which they were found to be deficient, i.e., progressively responsible work experience and hazard recognition and 18. control. This seems to be an impossible submission t0 assess, for two reasons: first, no one made these efforts.and hence it will never be known what information actually might have surfaced: and, secondly, the submission was based upon hindsight, in the sense that prior to the interviews -- which constituted the primary.source of information regarding the grievors -- the members of the panel did 'not actual~ly 'know what areas of weakness the grievors might possess. It does seem possible that relevant information might have been provided ~if the missing inquiries had been made. At the very least, the members of the Selection Board might have been led to ask questions of the grievors which could have elicited more information on ,perceived areas of deficiency. In this respect, it is noted that at the hearing, the grievors provided the Board with considerably more evidence regardingtheir qualifications. than apparently came to light in the course.of their interviews. In view of the above shortcomings in the interview procedure, it does not seem inappropriate for this Board to accord weight to the additional evidence supplied by the grievors in our determination, of whether they were "qualified to perform the work" within the meaning of Article 24.2.3. With respect to this issue, the evidence showed that the Ministry approached the question of who might be "qualified" in a special sense. Ordinarily, "to determine if the surplus employee is qualified to perform the work pursuant to Article 24.2.3, . . . [there must be] 'present ability!, to the extent of minimum competence in all components % of the job requirements." Re Loebel and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (19831, G.S.B. #331/82 (Verity), at 21. Here, the Ministry was not looking for "present~ability"; rather, it was looking for an employee who would possess "present ‘ability". upon completion of a mandatory ten-week training course * which was required to be completed by all persons hired on as Occupational Safety and Health Officers. It was acknowledged that if either of the grievors had been successful, they would have been put, through this.course. . Based upon the totality of the evidence that was presented at the hearing regarding the qualifications of the grievors, it must be concluded that at the end of the ten-week training course, Mr. Hill would have had the present ability to perform ;the work of ,an Occupational Health and Safety Officer 2, to the extent of minimum competence in all components of the job requirements. The evidence showed, inter *, that although Mr. Hill's industrial experience was over 20 years old, it could not be discounted. in the way in which it was by Mr. Thomson. The evidence showed that Mri Hill was a qualified Mechanical Engineer. Despite 20. the passage of time, he retained a considerable store of theoretical and practical knowledge. He possessed. a postgraduate diploma in aircraft production and was a member ~of the Institute of Production Engineers in the United Kingdom. Moreover, in his military career, which immediately preceded his employment as a Driver Improvement Instructor, Mr. Hill. had considerable exposure to matters relating to .industrial health and safety. The majority of this experience did not seem to be limited, as Mr. Thomson thought, to transportation and operator safety. For example, as a Base Transportation Officer, Mr., Hill served as the Chairman of the Section Genera,1 Safety Committee. In this capacity, he was responsible, inter alia, for health and safety. He performed weekly inspections in this regard. Be investigated safety problems such, as exhaust fumes, noise, vibration, improper venting and improper use of 'protective equipment. Mr. Hill also possessed more experience in the area of hazard recognition and control than that for which he was credited by Mr. Thomson. Evidence in this area, which apparently was not fully. before Mr. Thomson ~when he made his assessment, indicated that Mr. Hill possessed extensive knowledge regarding the storage and handling of explosives, bulk fuels, amunition, etc. He also possessed extensive knowledge of the compatibility or incompatibility with each 21. other of such substances. Finally, it seemed from the evidence that Mr. Hill possessed more in the way of conflict resolution skills than that for which' he might have been credited in the interview. The evidence showed that often in the course of his military career Mr. Hill functioned as a manager of a considerable complement of military and civilian employees. When he became a Driver Improvement Instructor, 'Mr. Hill gained experience on the other side of labour-management relations. He served as Vice-President of Local 551 of OPSEU. With this background to draw from, it seems that Mr. Hill would have been in a good position to take account of the. sensitivities. of both sides in 1 attempting to resolve a conflict between them regarding health and safety matters. On all of. the above,it is our conclusion that Mr. Hill was "qualified to perform the work" within the meaning of Article 24.2.3. of the collective agreement, and as a result he should have been assigned to fill the vacancy in the classification of Occupational Health and Safety Officer 2. Turning to the qualifications of Mr. Campbell, it should be noted that the totality of the evidence at the hearing 22. indicated that he, too,~ had fewer weaknesses than indicated in the scores he received. Unfortunately, however, his qualifications still seem to fall short of the mark. In particular, the majority of his ,industrial experience was limited to the area of. vehicle operation. Apart from one brief experience many years ago, Mr. Campbell did not have any exposure to heavy industry, light manufacturing, or institutional settings. . The grievance.of Mr. Campbell is dismissed. The grievance of Mr. Hill is allowed. Mr. Hill is, awarded the job of Occupational Health and Safety Officer 2, effective as of the date of his grievance, with no loss of seniority, wages or benefits. We will retain jurisdiction of the matter pending implementation by the parties of the'terms of this Award. DATED AT London, Ontario this 12th da I' I dissent!' (see attached) K. O'Ns:l, Member 4th /bfz&z& _ A. Stapleton, Member DISSENT OF THE UNION NOMINEE I concur with the award on the subject of Mr. Hill but cannot concur on the subject of Mr. Campbell. I do agree that Mr. Campbell certainly 'had fewer weaknesses then indicated in the point scores received. However despite the fact that the majority of his industrial experience was .' limited to the area of vehicle operation, I do not agree that he did not have sufficient experience to qualify for the job in question, particularly given the period of training that was required by the Ministry of all its new hires in this position. I feel that that the evidence showed that Mr. Campbell had sufficient qualification to do the job, even if it was not as extensive as Mr. Hill's,. His heavy equipment experience, although some time ago, was reinforced ,by his subsequent experience with various kinds of vehicular equipment. He also had carpentry and metal work courses in the area of light industry. Hc was directly responsible for safety when he was #in the' military. He testified that he was made the safety supervisor on the RCAF base in Langor, England after a course. They used the system of car control that had been formulated by the London Police. He was responsible for forklift training and safety lectures at the base. He had courses in firefighting and nuclear defence and safety. At RCAF in Trenton he was the safety supervisor, he gave instruction to mechanics, and he was in charge of safe handling of fuel at the refueling station. 2. At CFB Lahr he, as the chief dispatcher, made physical examinations of the tank farm and refueling tender. Throughout this time he continued to give safety courses in vehicular safety. When he came to Toronto he was responsible .for approximately 45 military and 50 civilians doing approximately the same job as in Lahr. When he was in Hamilton he was the NC0 in .charge of transportation and later was promoted to warrant officer and as such was responsible for the mechanics' health and welfare and their surroundings. He attended base conferences on safety. He reviewed all vehicle accident reports and he was chairman of the base safety committee for local support equipment. Although he may not have had much formal dispute resolution. experience, the reason for this was that he would resolve ~the problems with the workers at the first level. He was also involved in correcting people who had unsafe practices and urging them to have better habits. He had direct responsibility to investigate accidents, come up with findings and substantiate them. As Mr. Thompson testified, no one that he hires has all the skill. required for the job. It is hard to understand .how Mr. Campbell's military experience and subsequent "people" experience with the Ministry of Transport does not qualify him for the inspector job. He hasmuch more experience with equipment of all 3. kinds than could be expected coming from the "institutions" that the interviewing committee was evidently looking for, for example: schools and hospitals. It is also very difficult to understand why the military is not considered an institution worthy of consideration under this heading when a police force is. It would seem to me that the military is a much more comprehensive institution and one that has offered Mr. Campbell a much more varied and appropriate experience than many of these institutions would. Mr. Thompson.also testified that one of the key things necessary for the job was "adaptability of the human being to new situations". If is. very clear from all of Mr. Campbell's experience that he has that adaptability. Particularly, his successful adaptation to his job at the Ministry.of Transportation and Communications after his .long career in the military demonstrates this most recently. His progessive experience in the military, which required constant adaptability to different situations and countries, demonstrates this over many years. as well. I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr. Campbell meets the standard necessary for the job in question. Given the purpose of the clause in the Collective Agreement which we are operating under, both grievances should be allowed in my opinion '. 4. As to the procedural matter, the facts of this case are sufficiently similar to the Marek case (GSB 414/83) that the process shoud have been quashed. As the Samuels Board says on page 5 of that award, reliance on the interviews alone and failure to refer to personnel files for performance appraisals would "alone fatally flaw the selection process undertaken by the interviewers here." The question of the difference between the job specification and the posting is a rather important one. The job posting clearly offers a job for which both grievors are.qualified. The "problems" in the application arose out of the specifics of the job specification and the interview team's interpretation of them. It is at the very least bad labour relations to have higher standards in mind then ,that which are posted. However, here the Collective Agreement specifically requires that the notice of the vacancy specify nature and title of position, the salary and qualifications required. Therefore ,the employer is bound by the notice of vacancy as to what can be 'required of the applicants. Given all these considerations, I would have allowed the grievance of Mr. Campbell as well.