HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0620.Thompson.85-12-04IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU (Ron Thompson)
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation and Communications)
Before: M. Teplitsky, Q.C. Vice-Chairman
1. Freedman Member.
P. Coupey Member
For the Grievor: 5. Ballant yne
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer: J. P. Zarudny
Law Officer
Crown Law Office Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
Hearing: January 8, 1985
October 1, 1985
Grievor
Employer
-2-
s grievance over a job competition first .
came on for hearing on January 8, 1985. It was adjourned
to permit the employer to do further testing of the
grievor and the incumbent which would be relevant to the
position as posted.
I have reviewed all of the testimony, both oral
and documentary, and have no hesitation in concluding
that the grievor, who has the greater seniority, was
relatively equal to the incumbent.
A lengthy analysis of the evidence would not be
of,assistance. Suffice to say that the three persons who
interviewed the grievor and the incumbent and who administered'
the tests awarded scores respectively of 142 and 140 with
respect to the operation of the relevant equipment. In the
overall scoring, the incumbent's advantage was in the areas
of safety and driving record, and planning and performing~tasks.
With the greatest respect to the Committee, although
the incumbent's overall driving record was somewhat better
than the grievor's, the incumbent had a job-related accident
whereas the grievor had a perfect record at work. The latter
difference rendered them, for all practical purposes, equal.
There was simply no basis, in my opinion, for rating the
(. - 3-
incumbent higher than the grievor in this area.
Similarly, in the area of planning and performing
work tasks, we have read the questions that were put to each
of the incumbent and the grievor and have read their answers.
I am unable to discern any significant difference between the
two. In one question the grievor gave significantly more
detail than the incumbent. On the other hand, in response to
another question, the incumbent gave significantly more detail
than did the grievor.
In the result, a careful review of the evidence
satisfies me that the incumbent and the grievor, with respect
to the posted position, were at least relatively equal.
Accordingly, as the senior employee, the grievor should have
been awarded the position.
We will remain seized if the parties are unable
to resolve any issues of compensation or otherwise
DATED the 4th day of December, 1955.
.~.._ ,~ .- ~~-.~ ~.~
M. Teplitsky, Q-C., Vice-Chairman
Q
&r .
P. Coupey, ,Member