HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0920.Kuyntjes and Larman.87-12-21920105, 921105
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: (PPSEIJ (P.B. Kuyntjes h R. Larman)
Crievor
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation'& Communications)
Employer
Before:
For the Crievor:
For the Employer: K. 8. Cribbie
Staff Relations Officer
Human Resources Branch
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
.I. Gandz Vice Chairman
J. Anderson Member
W. Lobraico Member
B. Hanson
Counsel
Cavallurzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers & Solicitors
July 7. 1987
i . ’
DECISION
The Grievance
The grievors claim that they were unjustly denied the position of
Assistant to the Head, District Engineering Services and ask that
they be awarded this position. At the hearing the Union decided
to proceed only with the Kuyntjes grievance, asking that the
Larman grievance be put in abeyance pending the outcome of the
Kunynt j es case. Furthermore. the Union and the Employer agreed
to proceed only with the issue of whether the grievor should have
been given an interview.
The ,relevant portions of the Collective Agreement are set
out'below: .
ARTICLE 4 - POSTING AND FILLING OF VACANCIES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
OR N'EW POSITIONS
When a ,vacancy occurs or a new,position is created
in the bargaining unit, it shall be advertised for
at least five (5) working days prior to the
established closing date when advertised within a
Ministry. or it shall be advertised for at least
ten (10) .working days prior to the established
closing date when advertised service-wide. All
applications will be acknowledged. Where
practicable, notice of vacancies shall be posted
on bulletin boards.
The notice of vacancy shall state, where
applicable, the nature alid title of position,
salary. qualifications required and the area in
which the position exists.
In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give
primary consideration to qualifications and
ability to perform the required duties. Where
qualifications and ability are relatively equal,
Length of continuous service shall be a .
consideration.
An applicant who is invited to attend an interview
within the Civil Service may be granted time-off
with no loss of pay and with no Loss of credits to
attend the interview.
-2 -
I) ; ? .i,
The Facts
The job of Assistant to the Head, District Engineering Services.
was posted-on August 30. 1985. The criteria for the job were
listed under two headings: "Must Xavea" , which were absolutely
required of the aucceaaful candidates; and "Should Haves", which
were desirable but not essential. Two positions were available.
Twenty-two (22) people applied for these two positions.
including the grievora. The initital screening of applicants was
done by Len Malloy. the personnel officer at the Ministry of.
Transportation and 'Communications office in Burlington. Using a
prepared form, which accurately reflected the criteria
established in the job posting, he placed ticks (they have it),
crosses (they don't have it), or question marks (not sure) in
each of the "must have" and "should have" categories for each
applicant.. These ticks, crosses, and gueation marks were baaed
sole1 y. according to Malloy, on the applic5nt.s written
application form.
Following the usual Ministry practice, Mr. Malloy took this
list to the interview panel established for the position to
decide which of the applicants should be interviewed for the job.
The other members of the interview panel, in addition to Len
Malloy, were Ernie Dufreane, head of engineering services, and
John Marcolin, district maintenance engineer.
This panel decided to call six people for the interviews for
the two available positions. From the testimony of Dufreane and
Malloy, it was apparent that they based the decision to interview
or not on the application forma and some incomplete information
or peraon,aL knowledge of the applicants. Selected information on
those who were interviewed and the applicants are shown below:
-3-
NAME
'Interviewees
Afful
Ahluwalia
Jaarsma
Laughren
Rideout
Seebach
Grievora
Kunyntjea
Larman
SRNIORITl MUST HAVES SHOULD HAVES
74-05-06
75-05-05
69-05-20
66-10-17
69-09-30
69-09-09
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
5/5
4/s (l=?)
215
4/s (l=?)
215
3/5
74-04-i9 * 4/4 2/S (l=?)
74-05-06 4/4 2/S (l=?)
Afful and Ahluwalia were both judged as superior baaed on
this initital screening by the interview panel. There were
another eight who were considered roughly comparable at this
stage. The interview team decided to interview only four of
these and they based their cutoff decision on the seniority of
the applicants. In this respect. the seniority of Kunyntjea was
substantially leas (4 l/2 years) than others who were
interviewed. Following the interviews, the two positions were
awarded to Jaarama and Laughren, both of whom had substantially
more seniority than the grievora.
The personnel files of the interview candidates, and those
not offered interviews. were not reviewed prior to the interview
decision and supervisors were not contacted for additional
information on the applicants. l'he prior knowledge of candidates
was incomplete. For example, Dufresne knew Afful from previous
work contact in the early 1970's and knew Ahluwalia..guite well.
He knew some of the others on the list of 22 but did not know one
of the successful candidates, Laughren. He had some prior
r -4-
knowledge of .Kuyntjea' work both directly.and through one of the
grievor'a supervisors.
Malloy teatified,that. at a minimum, selection panels such
as this liked to have at Least three candidates per position but
that it was not unusual to have seven or eight. Dufresno
testified that the panel felt that. from the initial screening.
they had three outstanding candidates and decided to limit the
List bf interviewees by adding three.additional candidates based
on seniority since many of them met'the minimum requirements.
Furthermore. Dufreane testified ~that he was particularly
'concerned that the candidates have good working knowledge of
tendering procedures. While agreeing that this was not specified
in the "skills and knowledge" required for the job, it was
nevertheless clearly included in the duties and responsibilities
required.
Kuyntjes was a Senior Construction Technician at the time.
of this posting and had previously been a Public Service Trainee
B and Technician 3. Survey.. During his previous.experience he
-had been temporarily assigned to other jobs and had some
knowledge of tendering procedures, as a result of a district
enquiry in 1981/2. Furthermore,~he teatifed that he had some
knowledge of maintenance management when he was an assistant to
the area construction engineer.. He had applied for the position
of head of engineering services in North Bay and had been
interviewed, although he was not the successful candidate. Under
cross-examination it was clearly shown that Kuyntjes' ,experience
of tendering was very limited and confined~ to pre-1985 tendering
procedures and policies.
- 5 -
The Arguments
The Union argues that this selection process was deficient and
that .:Ruyntjea should not have been screened out at the interview
stage. While acknowledging that the Employer has the right to
screen applicants, and does not have the obligation to interview
everyone. the Union claima thatwhile there were three candidates
with apparently better qualifications (Afful. Ahluwalia, and
Laughren) there,were seven others who were virtually
indistinguishable on the basis of their applications. The Union
claims that all of these should have been interviewed.
The Em~loyer'arguea that there is no absolute entitlement to
an interview and that the process used by the Employer in this
case was quite ~fair and reasonable.
The Decision
What appears to be at issue here is whether or not the incumbent
was entitled to an interview. It has been well established in
the Board's jurisprudence that the employer must use a process of
decision-making which is designed to'conaider the relative
qualifications and ability to a candidate in a competition which
will ensure that aufficent relevant information is adduced before
the decision-makers so that they are able to make an informed
choice (Remark, 149/77; Quinn, g/78). On the other hand, there is
no obligation to give interviews to all who apply. In Borecki
(356/82) the Board noted that questions of efficiency and coat
come into play when there are many qualified applicants and this
view was reiterated in Colacci (912/82) and Balica (42/84).
If the eventual decision about who gets a job is to be based
on relative qualifications and abilities, it follows that all
steps leading up to that decision must also satisfy the
requirement that they lead to valid and relevant information
about qualifications and abilities being brought to the attention
of the selection board. If the pre-screening decision screens
r
-6-
out a better qualified candidate, the eventual decision cannot
help but be faulty. Therefore, while there is clearly no right
to an Interview in the collective, agreement, the nature of the
eventual decision.to be made requires that the pre-interview
screening be done in a comprehensive and fair manner.
In the instant case t&e was a thorouqh screening of the -
candidatee aqainat a pre-established set of criteria which were
reflective of the job requirkents. It was not, in our view,
unreasonable of the selection panel to draw the line at six
. candidates to be interviewed and to.deny tQe grievor an
interview. They interviewed those who scored highes: on the
established criteria as well as. those who were the most senior .
smonq.the next tier of qualified applicants. Their decision as to
who should be interviewed was influenced by their prior knowledge
of -1tidividual candidates plus some additional knowledge of the
type of work that they would have been involved with in the
po&tions they had held. In.our view this is, a perfectLy
reasonable way of going about a pre-screening process. The fact
that the selection panel.did.not seek out personnel file data
and/or supervisor assessments of all candidates prior to deciding
to offer interviews to some does not, in our judqement.
invalidate the pre-screening process. Accordingly, w.
grhmance is denied.
Dated at London, Ontario, this 21st day of December, 1987.
Member
Member