Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-1244.Fazzolari et al.85-10-04TE‘EP”oNE* m/599- 968.3 1244184, 1353184, 1354/84 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE ljARGAINING ACT . Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD etween: OPSEU (Fazzolari, Kumal & BudwklZ Grievors _ And The Crown in Right' of Ontario~ ministry of.TrangpFrtation & C onmnmications)_ .Employer Before: For the Grievor: M: I. Rotman * .:I Counsel / Barrister & %lici'tor For the Employer: M. M. Fleishman Counsel Crown Law Office Civil Ministry of the Attorney Gkxal Hearing: June 13, 1985 July 26, 1985 : .:. : ~ :’ - 2 - DECISION This 1s a job posting Grievance in which Mario Fazzolari, Canesh Kumal and Mrs. Fely Budwal, allege that each has been unfairly denied a promotion to the position of Group Leader, Mlcrof’llm Unit at Kingston. Each Crlevor seeks promo- tlon to the position. The two successful applicants, Raymond Duminie and Ml-S. Deborah Ignas, were given notice of the proceedings. Mr. Duminie chose not to attend. Mrs. Ignas did attend on both earlng dates, and participated fully ln the proceedings. All three Grievers are permanent Ministry employees. Mr. Farzolari became a permanent staff member in October, 1976 and worked In the Microfilm Section of the Hinlstry until July of 1983 when he was transferred to the Renewal Processing Sec- tion at Kingston. In November, 1984 when the Grievance was filed, he held the classification of Clerk 3 General. Mr. Kumal has been employed by the Ministry since December, 1980 in the Hlcrofilm Section, and his present class- ification fs Microfilm Operator 3. I - 3 - Mrs. Budwal holds the same classification, and has been employed since february, 1980 in the Ministry's Microfilm ,,,. Section, with the exception of a five month period pridr to the move from Toronto to Kingston. . At the.time of the competition, the two incumbents were contract employees employed in the Kingston Microfilm Unit. Mr. .Dumfnie joined the Ministry in August of 1983 and Mrs. Ignas was.hired in September of that year."~ As a result of an office re-organizatidn at Kingston, the Ministry. created two new positions 'for Group Leader, Micro- film Unit.. Accordingly, 'a' Ministry posting app'eared on August . 8, 1984 as follows: "Competition No: LC/24-10 Posting Date: August 8, 1984 Closing Date: August 21, 1984 THIS COMPETITION IS OPEN ONLY TO MEMBERS OFT THE PROBATIONARY AND REGULAR STAFF OF THIS MINISTRY. AND CONTRACT OR UNCLASSIFIED 'STAFF EMPLOYED AT TH,E TIME OF THIS POSTING. GROUP LEADE~R, MICROFILM UNIT (2 Vacancies) 3 Operator 4, Microfilm .-. - $j6,3.36 ;'$416.85 PER WEEK ; (Under Review), .: 1 -; SCHEDULE 3 - 36.25 'HOURS,PER WEEK LOCATION:. MICRdFILM SECTION. 118 PRINCESS STREET, KINGSTON RESTRICTED -. ‘_ , : . . . ‘.~ * - 4 - THE 309 Under the direction of the Supervisor, Microfilm Unit you will provide technical assistance and oper- ational leadership to a group of microfiLm operators by: - ensuring all equipment is In efficient working order and distributing workload evenly among staff to ensure production levels and deadlines are main- tained. - reviewing output and providing sound training where necessary. - resolving routine problems, referring complex situations to supervisor for advise and/or resolu- tion. - performing various clerical/group leader dutles such as: compiling various statistics, operating equipment during peak periods, explaining and imple- menting revised procedures, disciplining and coun- selling staff, preparing appraisals, as required. THE CANDIDATE: MUST HAVE: 1. Thorough understanding of the microfilming pro- cess and how it relates to other sections. 2. The ability to organize the unit’s activities and communicate effectively. with staff. 3. Good knowledge of and the ability to operate all microfilming equipment. SHOULD HAVE: A. Previous supervisory experience. 3. Working knowledge of Collective Agreement. AREA OF SEARCH: H.T.C. OFFICES - KINGSTON INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS: To ensure maximum consideration of your application, please respond as follows: - Apply by submitting a completed Ontario Public Service ‘Application for Employment’ -- Form 7540-1062. - Submit a completed ‘Application for Employment Attachment’ Form ADM-P-25. On this form respond in pertlnent detail to The Candidate MUSTS and SHOULDS listed above. Where your experience, knowledge, skills, abilities relate to a MUST or SHOULD listed a - 5 - above, explain the relationship ‘which will assist greatly in the qualification and ,interview selection process. - A submission in any other form may not be considered. - The ‘successful applicant shall be reimbursed for moving expenses according to current Ministry regu- lations. - Applicants selected for a personal interview will be contacted directly by a personnel representative. - When invited to attend an interview, each appli- cant is reasponsible for arranging for the required time off. - ‘Equality of. Opportunity f,or ‘Employment). - Any applications received after August Zlst 4:30 p.m., will NOT be considered. - ADDRESS ENVELOPE TO: Mr. P. 3. McDonald Head, Personnel Services Ministry of Transportation,& Communications 355 Counter Street, Postal Bag 4000 Kingston, Ontario ~ N7L 5A31’ The job posti~ng was prepared .pursuant to the. gob Specification and Class Allocati,on Form for ~the Group Leader Position: “PURPOSE OF POSITION Prov1d.e technical assistance and operational leader- ship to a group of microfilm clerks\performing a com- prehensive microfilming function related to Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration sou.rce.documents. SUMMARY OF DUTIESAND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Supervises the daily activitiesof staf,f engaged in the microfilming, process by performing duties such as: I - 6 - - maintaining workflow through an even distribution of work among staff to ensure production levels and deadlines are maintained; - inspecting quality and output of work performed 80% through its various stages of operation; - advising staff and implementing supervisor’s in- structions with regard to new policies and~operation- al procedures; - ensuring Ministry policies and procedures are properly adhered to; - providing first level guidance on operational- equipment related problems; - compiling daily, weekly, monthly production statistics and analyzing same with a view to recom- mending improvements to procedures and equipment con- figuration when positive and/or negative variances are detected; - providing effective training to new staff; - ensuring that all equipment is in efficient work- ing order and preparing initial documentation for servicing. Performs various other duties such as: - acting for supervisor when absent and assisting supervisor when necessary; - disciplining and counselling staff on matters of a routine nature; - reporting and discussing complex. personnel problems with supervisor; 20% - preparing necessary staff appraisals; - preparing production analysis reports with sug- gestions and recommendations to overcome deficiencies in the operation; - uses initiative to follow-up and resolve operational and procedural errors; - performs duties of subordinates during daily peak periods and at time of staff shortage; - as required. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE WORK Sound leadership and supervisory ability including good communication skills. Sound knowledge of the working operations of the unit. Thorough knowledge of start to finish microfilm processes. Good under- standing of the inter-relationship between the micro- film unit and the end user requirements. Good know- ledge of/and the ability to operate microfilmings equipment such as cameras, splicers, etc.” - 7 - Twenty-one applicants we're interriewed~ for the two positions. Four of those applicants were permanent employees and the remainder were unclassifiid~'s'taff hired as.contract employees. The selection panel consisted of Michael Nagel, Manager of Support Services of Kingston; Mrs. Theresa Dickson, Head of Data ,Conversion & Microfilm Section; and John Kenney, Regional Person- nel Officer. The Microfilm Unit Supervisor, Mrs; Pay Browne who was to have been a member of the selection panel, was however unable to participate on account of illness. The original intent apparently'sas to await Mrs. Browne's return prior to.the interviews; 'However, by:,October, 1984, the Employer decided to conduct the interviews in the absence of Mrs.; Erowne. Mrs. Browne subsequently return.ed to work- approximately two weeks after the interviews.had ,taken place - a fact that was not known at the time of the interviews. Each applicant was interviewed by the three member selection panel and was asked identical questions., There, were eleven 'questions - eight of ~which ivere designed to elicit technical information,’ and’three questions were .prepared to canvass supervisory skills. Individually, each panel member, assigned marks to the candidates (five marks per questibn). Follbsing ttie interviews, collectively the .selection panel assigned a “consensu.s mark” to each candida,te under the technical and ‘sup,ervisory categories which were then - 8 - multiplied by two different weighting factors. The technical questions were assigned a greater weighting factor than were ions (ten and five respectively). the supervisory quest Mr. Duminie received 120 marks, Hr. Ignas 105, Mr. Farzolari 60, Hr. Kumal 45 and tirs. Budwal 40. In all, ten applicants achieved scores higher than Mr. Fazzolari, but lower than Mrs. Ignas. Mr. Nagel testified that ally questions accurately reflected both the technical and supervisory components of the job. In their evidence, the Grievers agreed with that assess- ment, although were critical that the questions did not cover every aspect of the job. The evidence established that the selection of the two successful applicants was made solely on the results of the interview. Only one of the selection panel members reviewed the personnel files of the four permanent staff members. At the Hearing, the Board was advised that for employees hired on contract there are neither personnel files nor appraisals. It is understandable that Mrs. Fay Browne was not a member of the selection panel. However, it is surprising that - 9 - Mrs. Browne, the Supervisor of most if not all of the ” applicants, was not called upon for input regarding the suitability of each applicant for the jobs. Clearly, only Mrs. Browne had a first hand knowledge of all the candidates. The Board cannot Bssume that ‘consultation with Mrs. Browne would not have changed the final selection result: Supervisory input into the selction procedure is always a critical component which cannot be ignored for a ‘proper assessment. The questions posed. by the selection committee were undoubtedly related to the positions’ in question. However, the questions were directed and weighted primarily to the technical 1 -component of the job.’ We find th.at’. fact to be surprising in the face of Mr. Nagells-te~stimony that ail twenty-one appli- i cants were deemed to be qualified for the job ‘during”the -pre- screerxing drocess, based on the’applications received. ’ ‘. f ~I. :, : .._ I The scoring result, admittedly’somewhat lopsided, may well have been different had more questions’and a’greater weighting factor been attributed to the supervisory aspect of the job. Although it was a requirement that the successful, . candfdate have a thorough knowledge of the technical component : of the position, it’ would appear that the ‘position calls for candidates primarily with supervisory’skills: In our opinion; ., -1 j I ! ; ‘: : : - lo- the few questions directly related to leadership qualities were inadequate. It may well be that the selection of Mr. Duminie and Mrs. Ignas were the appropriate choices. The Board was impressed with the obvious communication skills of Mrs. Ignas. Similarly, we have no hesitation in accepting her evidence that she devoted many hours in preparation for the original inter- view. Although Mr. Duminie was not present at the Hearing, his application for the position is both complete and literate. However, in sum, the Board finds that the selection procedure is sufficiently flawed that it cannot be allowed to stand. ,Previous Decisions of the Grievance Settlement Board have set aside competitions as a result of flawed selection procedures. See for example Quinn and Ministry of Transporta- tion and Communications, 9/78 (Pritchard); Hoffman and Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 22/79 (Barton); Leslie and Hinlstry of Transportation and Communications, 126179 (Draper) ; Cuerreiro-Kolinowski and Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, 304/82 (Teplitskyl; and Marek and Ministry of the Attorney General, 414/83 (Samuelsl. Procedural fairness 1s an essential ingredient in order to achieve employee acceptance and respect for selection procedures. In the Instant matter, there may have been no - ll- Grievances filed.had the supervisor, .Mrs. Fay Erowne played some role in the final’selection procedure. The flawed selection procedure prevents the Board from determining the real issue of relative equality as contem- plated by Article 4.3 of the Coilective Agreement. We’ are satisfied that the selection board ignored the Grfevors’ past experience which should have been accorded some weight in the selection procedures. Clearly, that omission is the very reason for the present Grievances. &I - Seniority becomes a relevant factor, if not the relevant factor, in the ultimate& selection ‘in the event that the app1icdnt.s are: deemed to be kelativiiy equal. In the instant Grievances, the scores achieved by the candidates are rendered virtually meaning ‘less because of the flawed selection > procedures. ., ., .’ We are satisfied that the selection pan’el acted honestly and in good faith, encumbered as they were by the absence of the supervisor. . . .Since’the O’,;ario Divisional Court Sudgment of Mr. .- 3ustice Cory in Re Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada I,., ; ‘, ; .: . - 12- ,. Limited v. Canadian Food and Allied Workers Union, Local 175 (1976), 11 L.A.C. (Zd) 291, an Arbitration Board considering promotion cases cannot restrict itself to a determination as to whether the Employer acted honestly and reasonably. In our opinion, this is the appropriate case to re-open the competl- tlon upon certain terms and conditions. It may well be that the new interviews will produce the identical result. However, the issue here 1s one of procedural fairness. :; :: _. .‘. In the result, the Board orders that the caqetiticn shall be reopened and fresh selecti- made subject to the following term and ccplditicns: (1) Each ina shall retain his or her position pending IIRJ interviews and the results af those interviews. * (2) The Ministry shall re-interview all original applicants who still wfsh consideration Por the two positions. Interviews shall take place within 30 days from the issuance of this Decision. (3) The interview panel shall consist of three per- sons, none of whom shall have participated in the original Interviews. The supervisor, Mrs. Fay Drowne shall be a member of the interview panel, if poss- ible. (4) A Order, \ - 13 - 1 persons interviewed as a result’ of this and the new selection board panel members, shall be provided in advance with a copy of the orig- inal posting and the applicable Position Specifica- tion and Class Allocation Form. (5) The selection board will prepare a new series of questions relevant to the position which are designed to elicit both technical and supervisory skills, with the weighting and numbers of questions in favour of supervisory skills. (6)' The interview panel shall review the personnel. files and performance appraisals of each applicant, where applicable. Each applicant’s supervisor shall be requested to ~submit a written evaluation of the qualifications~and ability to perform the Job with emphasis upon the supervisory component. (7) The experience of the two incumbents as Group Leaders since the original interviews shall not be taken in to account in making the ultimate selection. (8) The past experience of each applicant shall be considered together with all other relevant matters. <’ ‘. - 14- (9) For the benfit of unsuccessful applicants, individual counselling sessions will be held, which will review the applicant’s performance during the interview, areas of perceived weakness, and any other _ relevant matters. (10) This panel shall retain jurisdiction on the issue of compensation, if applicable, pending a determination by the new selection panel. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 4th day of October- A.D., 1905. R. L. Verity, O.C. - Vice-Chairman /&lbzL 5. D. Kaufman UHember ‘. ,&;3. Q L+ P. D. Camp - Member