HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-1522.Callo.88-01-26File # 1522185
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN-EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE ‘BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
For the Griever:
,’
For the Employer:
Hearing:
OPSEU (Gracita Callo)
The Crown in RLght of Ontario
(Ministry of Government Services)
B. B. Fisher Vice Chairman
I. Freedman Member
H. Roberts ,Member
MalcolmRuby
COUllSel
Gowling and Henderson
Barriseers and Solicitors
.’ ‘(
P. Van Home
Staff Relations B Safety Manager
Personnel Services Branch
Ministry of Govern’n!ene Services
June 24, 1987
Grievor
Employer
DECISION
lbisisajcbaxpetitimase. Thegriworclaimthatshewas
iqxqerlydeniedthepcsitianofCkrk3General (MailingListcleW
inajcbaqxtitim. sherqwststhatthebardplaceherinthe
position with full retmxtivity for cm!pmsationor, inthe
a.ltemative,thatanewcanpetiticmbeheld.
me- , cOrinne=f==W,-Foresent-~
~:hmever,shed.idmttakeanactivepxtinthe
pmx&itqsasthe~loyerhadgivenheran~that~
~itianwarldnztbe advenelyaffectedtythe altaare of this
grievame.Ks.&Xmac?yii-rLicat&totheEbatdttntshe~prepared
toletthe employer represent herillthp~. \
lbepositianspecification fort&j& inq.ust.icm isattachedaS
Schedule 'A" to this award. Briefly, thep3siticm involves the entry~
ofmauirglistinfo?matilmprilnarilybyaxPker ardtheFmductionof
labels for mass xrbailirq for gcmrmad depdmds.
Ihepositian\las~inNovember,1985withadosingdateof
Deznter 6, 1985. 'Ihe actual pcstirq is attacbd as w "W to
thisaward.
meonly carrlidates wit0 a@lied forthepcsitionwxethegrievorand
the isctmhnt. mthWprwia~~experienceintheactualposition
thattheyhereaznp~for;~er, theireqeriexevaried greatly
within that position. %egrievor!mdwrkdintherelevant~ection
onatemporary .semmbmt basis fw January 15, 1985 to A&Wt 30,
1985. 'Iherewerebasicallytwomethodsofenterin3~ormationatthat
-2-
E&hcardidateswereintenCew&inDecanber . me interviewp3ne.
cnnsisted of Tony KDcblal, MaIngerOf~Govenrmerrt Mail Service, Joanne
Watscm, BmtormMs. B. YiMison,Managerof~
CcmtraMEdil'Serrice. TlllSMlypanel-~.WereCdlledtO
give widencehfare this EcnrdwqeKc. lZf&l.al arx%Ms. Watson.
lbeEoardhascarefullyreviewcdthepnxxdure~by~e
selecticmpanelarxIbasdete&zd-thatth&ewereanunberof
substarrtivedefects&chareas follows:
1. Thedirectsqenhorofhth.theina&entardthegrievor
wasMs. SuzameFarker, whogave'widem=onMfofthe~l~.
Mr.xcabalwas~.parkers~directsupwisor. Upanarwiewofthe
widenz+ of&i. ParkeranzlMr. Xc&MI, it sefns that only Mr. Rxblal
discussedtheirdividual~meritsofthe~oldidateswithMs.Parker.
Ms. Watscmgawim widhse thatshe~'werdisuss&the ~arxlidate~s
skills aidabilitieswithMs. Parkermrdid!&. F~L-k.ertestifyto that
effect. Furthernare, m widemewas led atallas to the relationship
of Us. M&son to the werallwxkplace an3 m widemewas led that
shewe.rdixusedtheb3ividu+lperfozmame of the candidates with
the .w .supwvisor.
. ../3
-1
-3-
lhisBaardhasheldmptwi~ooasionsthatitis~y
i.nprtantforasel~mpamlto~witithecardidate's
inmdiatesupwisarstherelativeskills~abilityofthcse
czud.idam. (see&y&ellag 51X/81 aml uses referred to an page 26 of
that decision) plis 1 ' 'isevenlwL73inprtant~the~
czuxlidateshaveinfactbathperfcmxdthejcbinquesticnfor
suhstantialparicdsoftime.
~~~.Kmblalmayhave~tberelati~meritsof~~
cardiQtgvith~.parker,it~d~~even~importantforthetwo
otherpam.l~to~tbesematterswi~Ms.parkerhsca~
theyaFpawhlyhadno&ytodaykrwledge oftheskills arrlabilities
Of the c2lndidates.
2. lhereismevi~that~nr?mberoftheseleceianpanel
reviewed the applicable persorrnel files. Jqain,t.he~ case
ardthaCaSgreferredtothemi.nhavesta~~tallmembersofthe
se.lecticmpanelshculdreviewthepeMplnel filesofallinterfiewed
ag@hnts.~employerledevickrceinthisczsethatthereware
letten~~~thegrievors'fileofacriticalMture,~lyas
evidemebeforethisBoardastotbe skillandabilityoftkgrievor.
~noevi~was.ledtosharthatthesedocJments WereWe?.-
brax#Vztotheattenticmofanyofthenm&ers of+~sshctianpanel
althm#IMr. Rxb1a.l myhellhavekeen aware of thempriorto the
i.nterviev. Noevidenaz~ledthatany~shnilarreviewwas.mde
of the i.nw&e&'s file.
. ../4
.- 4-
3. It'wxldappsarthatthe pkkuydevicethattheselectionpanel
usedindecidirqizebeentbe~dates~tbeirrterview. Therewasa
listof6:q+ti&Eneparedpri~tothei.ntemiew. meqllestiom
vJereariginallYFaeparedby-=p paaoerandTcnyKCC&3lard
reviawed,Mmtamst&d,byJoameWatscm.'lhequesticmwxeas
follms:
l.Please~lahhcwyrurskillsandexpari-*atetothis
pcsitiA. (5p&rts)
2. whatdoyal- by--, "N &eN d
hwi&xtantisitwithhan cirga&atiM? (5 pints)
3. When pralucirq labels for mass mail, why wxl~?lOO% acwacy
be lTeqLk& (10 nlarb)‘ -~
4.!kutid~haðeimteclientwhoisdc "gthat
his/herlaklsbeprintedVw#~,whileatthe5amtimeym ,
haveaheadystartedtoprintotherhi@erprioritylabls?
(10 points).
6:Inya.~c&cm, how i.np&ntarCgood,typimj skiils to
efficiency prccesk infoxmation Via a V.D.T. anl tiy?
(5 pointsj.
mismardhasserials resemations ahxt a nunbarof these questions.
me.plrposeofirRenriewquestionsis~iausly~toassess' tile skill al-73
. ../5
-5-
abilityoftheenplayeeandtherefore~dberelatedin a fumtional
nmnne.totheskill.srerpliredassetartinthej&postirqardinthe
position specificaticn. aleoveml.ltcme0fthe~~tithe
~requns~~ rqbed terded to overemphasize the-ability of the
irltmviaJeeto~in-~ 1in3oby=NtheP=c=
2al7izwords. For ewmple, qkstian #l is, in esse~13e, a rquest of the
i.XlAXktlJVerbalizehar~. nlis inforEltion was a.Lnady
availabletotheintenfiewpancl,then&uethecaniidates'amwsrs
~ytestmD~theFrabilityto~izetheir~~~inEnglish
titherthantoprwi&alnn2q&maticAoftheirskills~
t%xperience.
Csst.im#ZisaZmcsea IId3Ehd~OIltitherefO~dn
interfieclree\Jhotii.zedthecofiect ku.zzwm9sinkranswr'aculd
havean.dmnbgeovera~rkerwhowas~soadeptinaxTeRtbuz2
wxds.
Cuestion#3againhasmthirqtodowiththeactualperfo- of the
j&b;rather,itjustpnportstofMcutifthei.ntemiewee
m why her job is i.upamt .
questiaPl114is~ofthefar~~thatin'anyMyrelatestothe
actualperf- ofthej&.Itisafairatten@toseehowsaneone
wxldactinapresumablyaamm situatim.
Questim 15, like questicn #4, SeEJK to be related to the job function
itself.
Guestion 16 calls foranapinionof the intervieweewhich is really
. . ./6
I
-6-
i.r52levantbecause,itisuptimanag~tndeterminehowiorpo*
typingskillearetothejob.
Ithasi.&msUqthat~forthe~loyerinthe~ofhis
examimtioninch.iefofthei,&umbMandhis- e-aminationofthe
griworutilizedatotallydiffermtmethcdofguestioningthanwasJ
--bytheseldon.panel. 'Ihisisnuttosay'that-
~ti~~dfo~l~thequestians~an~i~butthisBoard
fcunditinhr&Aq~~the~layer's~askedquesti~of
tothth+griwor&rlihe~ ~relatbqtotherehvant~ition
specification. PresmablytkeqUyernmxantsthisEcardtode55e
, astotherelative~tiofthecardidatesbasedcn-anJ
ansm7saskedbyth+raamselxathet.tbnthc6e'ask0ibytheselection
panel.M.sBoardisnotprepar&todothatasti~notina '-..a
pcdtion to prcparly asses arkwere to tezhllid-~& alrisk cut
of th~itian specifi+Gm. alat is exactly what the seldon
panelwassuppcsedto'dobecmseithasteAnicalskillard~edge
tojudgepxqerlytheadequacyoftheanshers. ~~~Ysuggestto
,theempkyerthatinthefutureque&.ionsinaninterviewbelmreal~
.thelinesof azileeaf scrc6s~tionofthegri&rratherthan
thcseactuallyprtto~o1-didatesintheinterfiew.
Theresultsofthe interviewshmewdl~the imdequaq'ofthe
questions. WEcard &semedthegriworgiv~wkierxe in these
proceedirgsandccarludedthatshela~~articulatelarquage~ls
~ofthe'&mmbent. Theiixmbnthasafargreater~ofthe
. . ./7
I .
I
-7-
jottbnthegrievorattheprsenttime.'fhisis~le
lL=3ausethe- h3sbeen&ingthatjcb,notcmlyfor18msJths
priortot!nzon&etiticm,hsts~thatdatetothep-.
-,~seams~lKlrefdiarvithtenainologylilce
~~custnnersenrice~~~ wciriz* an3 is thereforet&terabletn
giveamreprofessicmal answer +Y these questions.
Itttbepositi~oftbe~loyerthat~pPpcseofthequestiolls
-WtCdytD ascerWntechnicalskillskrtalsotojudgethe
ctzdi&ite'S ability to oxmunicato with ~uasalleqedtnbea
veryimportant~ofthejob.
Wealwaysfin;litm3rehelpfultorwiewthe~iti~specificatiorstD
de3mmimfsactlywhatiqxdzmea~aSpecthasinajabrather
thanto1istento- Of wria2s vi- made after the pitim
hasa.badytxenfil.led.
Ifoneloaksatthepcsitioklspecifi~~~,itisverydearthatthe
abilitytoamtact clientsardanythbqtmdowithclientamtact
aastitutee onlylti ofthepositim specificatimswfiereas 90% of thq
positicn~ificatiowhastodovith~~and~~aspects
of G.rq the job. merefk, in the Board's CQbLicm, the selection
panel aw1-y cM2.-.-izedthe~catimaspectsofthe
positian~f~sdto~iderprcperlythetechnicalrequirewntsof
the job bibi& adxtitutd 90% of tlie position spsification.
~~~re,thejobpnstingitself~izest3averylargedegree
thetechnicalaspectsoftheposition~alth~thereisreference
. . ./a
to-k axtanermguiries arxlhavi.mggccdoral ammmbtion
skiUs,theoverwfielmingmajori~ofthe~relateto
technicalaspects,mtabilityto~cate.
,Itmaywellbe~~~incertainc~,for~,wfien
ajcbinvolvessupemisoryskiUs,toaskguestimsofamre
gewalized~c'~turetnhitistheapini~ofthisBoardthat
fo~pcsiti~like~aneinquestianhere,~chisl~ycleri~
innature,thesequestionrs& bqprqdate ad give,m.unfair
advmbgetoacardidate~possgses sUpSior.SkiJlsintheEhJliSh
-.
Imll!Aldibenoted#etbeinarmbentbyby~ tohave
been e&cab&at least at a secondary s&collwel.incznadawhereas
thegrievorbaseiucatedat~ secmdzyschoollevelinthe
Rrili~ines.Itisdearfmmthe~ythatthegrievorgavew~
that, ,alulax$l she urderstarristhe~lishl~,itisnota
kuquagethat~letely~resses herabilityto aztmmicate. Of
aurse,thisdcesmtmantitabilitytoaxmamicateisti~
iqmrtmtanirelamntjcbskillthat~canbeconsidered,onlythat
wheretbepcsiti~specificatianitselfgiveslimitedemFhasisto
.5zammication.skil1.5, theselectionpsnelxlstb2 -Y-
nottogiveunkee3@asistothc6eskillswherethere isdifferent
larquageke~almngstthecandidates,
Incoxlusion,this~finls~&tth~were subtantial defects in
theselectionpprocess. Hol+wer-thisBoarddcesnotfeelthatthe
. . ./9
-9-
~riateremdy istograntthegriarorthe position fmmthedate
Ofthe~becausewedD~havesufficient~o~ti~beforeus
inorderto~~as~isianforthatofthesel~~panel.
c¶ltheotkr~,theBoardcbesfealthatthedefectsaresutstantial
enar#thatitwxldbea~ge of justicenotto-the
azaqetitionandtherefore#eBoardu,arders.
mis&qetiticmshallbererunanthefollwin3basis:
1. Siru3atth3relemnttim2r&cdyelsec%presdinterestinthe
p&t.iaa,thkcqxtiticmwiUbeli.mibdtome between the griwor
ardtb-.
2. !Bxeskuldbeanewpanel~it~dIlotcowistof~of
-panel- i.tmlvedinthefirstanpetition. Furthermre,it
shculdnotincl~~. su7anns-asshehasalready~~
cpinimtothisBoatdastoherFapferenca oflaIxLi&tes.
3. mepan&isirrshvctedthatitmut'-t'~ththe~isoa
of?zhegriemrarrlth i.nmbntatthe relevant time, that is, prior
totAeawudingofthe~itimtotheimmbent.
4. lbepeneLis-tarwiewthe~ files, perfo-
aFpraisaLsardresum5ofthecaMidatesasthey8xistedpriortothe
holdirg of the original mqetition.
5. Eecausethfzinzmbnthasbeeninthepasitimsinmthe~
tb2paneltitodisa~~anye~qmriencetheinclrmbenthasenjayed
durirqthepzriodsi.nozkraFpointmenttothepcsiticnasthe
-ful cadidate. Hcxwer,theexpriemethatshehadinthatjab
. . ./lO
i
panclardaswell,thegriarcar~s~or~~canbecollsidered.
6. ItvxxldKpaarfrunthswidsrcethatt+e~itimhas&arqsd
s~thetimethatthejd,wasoriginallyawarded~tbat~~has
beenImreemplasisrKx?onthe~aspectsandalmastm~~
requirementofoparat.ingthsmanu&mchins.Zhefactthatthej&has
changedsince~~tian~,of-, aff&thsgz+mr's
righb4 mkr the aA.ldve agmaent. If ths gr&vor is qualifi& for
thsjcbasitoriginallyvas,themism reas&t7bsli&kthatshe
auldrwtnarperformi2nxe&t.iesthatha-febeenaddedfrantimi~
'tire. plerefore,wedirectthatin~thecanpetitian,the'
sel~*panelnolstregard~~~ofthe.jcbastheywereatthe
tixeofths~ark3mttoomsiderany&uqessincethattha.
7. ~~panelisd.&&sdtoprspareqsstionsfortheintsn4swin
acmrdancewiththereasons inthisdecisionardthatthossquesticm3
shcllldgoFhasizetheskillsandabilityinthesamgeneral~~~.
asset~inthejabspecifi~ti~.Qlre~dbatakennotto
werm@iasizeinthc5e~onssubjective~ofmaMgewnt
-ogyandconspts.~
. . ./11
- 11 -
jurisdicticminthismatterifanyprcblemarises
of the seam3 anpetition.
Dated at Toronto this 26th day of January, 1988.
Barry Fisher, Vice&airman
&+’
I. Freedman - Member
. .-ii
ADDENDUM
RE: 1522185 OPSEU (C. Callo) - Ministry of Government Services
The Board’s decision in the above case is based largely on seeming defects
and flaws in the manner in whi’ch the selection panel decided that, of the
two applicants for the position in question, Corinne McCready was considered
at that point in time to be better qualified for the job than was Gracira
Callo (the Griever) who had greater s~eniority.
The matter of “relatively equal qualifications and ability” which under
Article 4.3 of the collective agreement would have brought length of .
continuous service under consideration, was not, in my view, established
during the hearing. I” fact t the 18 months Ms. McCready had been on the
~job in question, prior’to the c:ompeti;ion being held, would re‘nder any
question of relatively equal qualifications and ability 3s being impossible
to support. . . . . . .I
My concurrence is indic,ated primarily- to enable ,thk: Minisrry to remove any
doubts as to the properness of its sklection process by a rerun of the
competition, with emphdsis, it is suggested; on’ points 3,4,5, the last
sentence if 6, and 7, as set out, as conditions for.the reru.n, beginning
on page 9 of the Board.decision.
H. Roberts
” .
r.w..c.d;
C’>- mitxeiaing infomrion recorde l ucb l # miling 1i.c iode.. ~8.8.. WanLiLy Of O.Y Or
.a ch.an.d .ddr....r for Cb.rp.b.Cb 9”r90..., epeciel in.rrucciorr. for 1i.c ru.. .LC.;
(‘j- ui&ioin* copm. of 111 cli.nr. m.ilin* li.t r.w..c. in ..srioo fil* includi.8
sb~p... .ddirioo.. or da1.tio.a.
1. ProQuc.. 1.b.L. rewired for mu. a1li.g. and meiareine a99mpri.C. r.cord. by:
C+ euhirring ~equeete for hbeie ~“II. “O V.D.T. l fcer reseivins job .b..C. from 3rd.~
(f-*-
produsriom resorde RLC., for cheqebeck purpoeeS;
uint.inins l m.t.r li.r of. jobe for ..ch 1eb.L a..;
c)- obreiaims pertinent informecim from control ahmats pri0c.d prior LO ..ch ND .od r,Cordi!J,, 0~ ~.,t.r ,Os, ,,a. 1i.t a- .t,d Q”.nCiCy Of ‘ddr.‘....
3. P.rfom. pn.r.1 clerical ..d c”.com.r service duri.. such I.:
c..c.cci.& eli.ot(.) LO cbuia .ddirion.l i.forvtioD .t%dlor .dri.. 0. .t.Cu. Of job;
II\ - coaracriq eyerem bremcn or repair rechoicien rhea c.chnic.1 p,robleme d.v.lop with
, ~0fCv.r. or b.rd”.r.;
(conr’d)
~.SKILLS*~Yo KNwdLE0GL OEC”,l.iU :OPr~FOYMTHE\“ORI(,lr.r,I~“Q~.~u~L~,YU~
Previcue clerieel l xp*riease. A pod uod.r.c.tzdi.g of uil op.r.Cim.,;pr.f.r.bly io .,,
~ov.rmmr l nviroamenc; l b&liry LO u.. . video diw1.y C.rmin.1 aad print.?; ability to wrk
“ad.= aiaiml rup.rri.ion; ability LO or8.oix. ad ccq1.t. work m.iwm..r. virhin frigid
d..dli...; .bilicy LO proc... . L.rg. volum. of infot’m.ripa accur.c.Ly; (cooe’d)
,; C:cNATdaFF /
3.‘. C?“ r.- - --. .- . _ - _ - --. . .
-2-
mI8s Mu’ RESPONSIBILITIES
/,
/. (conc’d)
;.\ . ,- assisting with Order Oesk and Expedirer fulrcriona during peak periods or in absence of
by concaccing client(a) ra:. uadeiiverable mail, makinp
,pproprr.c. alm~dm.ncl: . .
mailing lists; '.
of back orders for Ssssion+l/Hansard subacribrrs,
; maincainicip sub#cripcion filer, ensuring each
subscriber ir placed on cba approprioce
mailing Las;
- II araigncd.
I. .;,. .
Required by Governmsnt !4ail Section, Inf,.. --nation Services 3ranch to acminister
all mailing lists for section. Duties inc!ude: maintaining large vciumes of .
wiling lists using a vi+0 d;sc.iay terminai, c>ecklng and verifying all completed
data, producing Labels for ,mass m.silings, maintaining appropriate recqrds e.g.
master log, aXWring xstos?r inquiries re mailing lists, assistin. with Order Desk
and Expediter functions as required.
fJlJALIfICATIONS
Previous clerical expsrience. A good ulderstanding of mail operations, preferably
in a government environnent; ability to process a larg? volume of information
accurately; ability to,uie a video display.terminsi ad printer; administrative
and customer service ability, gbod oral comn0Jnication.s skills, tact, initiative.
THE APPLICATtON/RESUME 0' INTERESTED PARTIES Y:IST BE RECEIVED IN THE PERSONNEL
SERVICES SRANCH ON :R BCFORE THE CcOSIN; D.\TE. PLEASE FORWARD AIL APPLICAT!ONS
TO: Ministry of Governmxt Services
Personnel Services 3rnsch
Bth.fl. Ferguson Block
77 Wellesley St. W.
Toronto, Ontario