HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1934.Glemnitz and Skagen.89-12-06prriE r;fiiLi;DE mm BOARD SETTLEMENT RkGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearing: November 1, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD'
OPSEU (K. Glemnitz/E. Skagen)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Attorney General)
Employer
I.C. Springate Vice-Chairperson
S. Hennessy Member
D. Montrose Member
J. Kovacs
Counsel D
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
J. Mideo Staff Relations Officer
Human Resources Management
Ministry of the Attorney General
2
DECISION
These proceedings were commenced by grievances filed,by Mrs.
K. Glemnitz and Ms E. Skagen in which they alleged that they had
unfairly been denied a promotion into the position of Deputy
Sheriff for the District of Algoma. By decision dated October 24,
1988 the Board directed that the competition for the Deputy
Sheriff position be rerun with a new selection committee. When
this was done, Mrs. Glemnitr was again not selected for the
position. Mrs. Glemnitz filed a new grievance (file 5/891 in
which she again alleged that she had been unfairly denied a
promotion.
At a hearing held on November 1, 1989, the parties reached
agreement on certain matters relating to the conduct of the second
competition. They also agreed that Mrs. Glemnitz’s most recent
grievance should be dismissed. The parties requested that the
Board issue a decision containing the statements set out below.
1) This Board in its decision dated October 24, 1988
ordered that the competition for Deputy Sheriff for the
District of Algoma be rerun in accordance with the
conditions set out on page 14 of its award.
2) The parties agree that Mrs. Glemnitz should have
been permitted to nominate references of her choice in
completing the employment reference check consent form.
In particular, Mrs. Glemnitz was concerned that a
negative reference would be obtained from Mr. Anderson
because of the October 24, 1988 award. However, Mrs.
Glemnitz in a general way was advised of the reference.
3) The Ministry reserves the right to contact an
immediate supervisor for a reference.
4) The parties agree that not all of the panel members
reviewed the personnel files of each of the applicants,
nor did each panel member personally contact a
reference.
5) Mrs. Glemnitz should have been apprised of how all
the information obtained was considered by the panel in
its deliberations. In particular, the panel should have
advised Mrs. Glemnitz as to how it discounted any
experience gained by Mrs. Boston subsequent to her
selection as Deputy Shefiff in the prior competition.
Further, the panel should have advised how it took into
account varying employment references.
3
6) The grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 6th day of kY%ber , 1989
b I. C. Springate Vice-Chairperson
5. Hennessy, Member
,
D. Montrose, Men&r
4