HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2416.Sutherland.92-02-17 DecisionONTARIO CROWN EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD DE LA COURONNE DE L'ON TA RIO DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. 128 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST,
BUREAU 2100, TORONTO M5G 326-1388 (4 326-1396 2510/90 IN MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU
(Callender et al) BEFORE : FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING : and -The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Grievor B. Keller G. Majesky H. Roberts Employer
Vice-Chairperson Member Member A. Ryder Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barrister & Solicitors M. Farson counsel Fraser & Beatty Barrister & Solicitors June 3, 1991
-2 -DECISION The grievors filed grievances seeking reclassification of their positions. The parties subsequently reached an agreement that this Board issue a Berry-type order with respect
to those grievances and allowing the employer four months to create a new class standard applicable to the grievors. The parties were unable to resolve the issue of retroactivity with
the employer taking the position it is restricted to 20 days prior to the filing of the grievances and the union, on behalf of the grievor, arguing that retroactivity flows from some
time before that. Two of the grievors -Callender and O'Leary -assumed their current position of Building Controler 6 on January 2, 1989. Prior to their assuming the position they had
been informed by their supervisor-to-be, Mr. Peter Lepper, that he would attempt to have their positions reclassified as the previous incumbents had been classified at a higher level.
As the two grievors were not of the view that their positions were properly classified, they agreed that Mr. Lepper would pursue the matter on their behalf.
-3 -The evidence indicates that Mr. Lepper diligently applied himself to the task but was unable to convince Human Resources to reclassify the positions. Their consistent refusal is
demonstrated by a conversation the grievor's had to that effect in the summer of 1989 with Mr. Lepper's supervisor, a posting for the job in September 1989 indicating the classification
as Building Controler 6 and a position specification dated January 9, 1990 with the same classification for the position. As a result of the above, the matter was effectively dropped
and not actively pursued again by the two grievors until April 1990 at which time Mr. Lepper was replaced by Ms. Anne Thornton. In the meantime, the third grievor Mr. Paul Rademacher,
was working in the position as a secondment from March 16, 1989 until October 15, 1989. He assumed the position permanently from October 16, 1989. On August 22, 1990, Ms. Thornton wrote
to Human Resources asking them to reconsider the reclassification issue. By memo dated October 17, 1990, Human Resources declined. That decision was confirmed to the grievors shortly
thereafter. The instant grievances, dated November 11, 1990 followed.
On behalf of the grievors it was argued that the tests outlined in Marshall et al, 1797/89 (Keller) were met thus entitling the Board to waive the normal 20 day rule. It was also argued
that the doctrine of Laches applies as the right to grieve classification flows from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (C.E.C.B.A.) and not the collective agreement. The
employer, in response to the Laches argument stated that the issue to be determined flowed from the collective agreement and therefore the doctrine does not apply. It was further argued
that not all the tests enumerated in Marshall were met and that the normal 20 day rule applied. The Board was also referred to McKnight 192/88 (Watters) and Sals, 777/86 (Dissanayake)
. A further proposition was advanced by the employer regarding grievor Rademacher. The Board was told that he was piggy-backing on the efforts of the other two grievors and could not
benefit from those efforts without some evidence that he had somehow advanced his own case.
In Marshall, the Board enumerated the following tests: 1) The grievors must have, at some time prior to their formal grievance raised the issue with a responsible member of management;
2 ) There must be at least a tacit understanding that the purpose of raising the issue is to avoid the need for a formal grievance: 3 ) A management representative must have become actively
involved in the employee's claim: 4 ) There must be continued understanding by the employee that the matter is till being pursued and has not been irrevocably denied. What remains to
be determined is whether on the facts of the instant case those tests have been met. The evidence demonstrates that there are two discreet time frames that have to be examined. The first
deals with the attempts on behalf of the grievors by Mr. Lepper. We are satisfied that the fourth test has not been met. Mr. Callender was candid in his testimony that he was aware that
the final decision rested with Human Resources and that they had decided, and he knew, as early as the Summer of 1989 that the positions were not to be reclassified.
-6 -The matter was revived, however, when Ms. Thornton replaced Mr. Lepper. That is demonstrated by Mr. Callender's testimony and documents filed as exhibits. As in the case of Mr. Lepper,
Ms. Thornton was also unsuccessful. The difference lies in that fact that grievances were filed shortly after that information was communicated to the grievors. The employer suggested
that test two had never been met. We do not agree and find that the actions of the grievors and their supervisors suggest otherwise. We also reject the argument of the employer regarding
Mr. Redamacher. The fact that he was copied on Ms. Thornton's memo to Personnel is sufficient indication that the matter was also being pursued on his behalf and not just the other two
grievors. The Laches argument advanced by the grievors can not succeed. In the instant case the Board is exercising remedial authority flowing from the collective agreement. This is
distinguished from jurisdiction flowing directly from C.E.C.B.A.
The grievors are entitled to retroactivity to April 15, 1990 the approximate date of Ms. Thornton's appointment. We remain seized in the event there is any difficulty with the implementation
of this decision. Dated at' Nepean this 27th day of June, 1991. M. Brian Keller, Vice-Chair Gary Majesky Union Member Harry Roberts, Employer Member
LA COURONNE DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO)). M5G 128 (4 326-1388
16) 326-1396 2416/90, 2524/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under the CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Sutherland) -and
-Grievor BEFORE : FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING : The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer R. Verity Vice-Chairperson T. Browes-Bugden Member
M. O'Toole Member D. Matheson Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton Barrister & Solicitors C. Foster Grievance Officer Ministry of Correctional Services May 10, 1991
2 D E C I S I O N In this case, Richard Sutherland filed two separate grievances relating to the same matter. Mr. Sutherland alleges that the Employer, in bad faith, violated the provisions
of Article 4 of the collective agreement by unreasonably excluding him from consideration for the October 22, 1990 posted position of General Duty Officer (Classification -Correctional
Officer 2) at the Niagara Regional Centre. The allegation of bad faith is based on management's decision to restrict the area of search for the competition in question "to classified
and unclassified employees at the Niagara Regional Centre". The grievor seeks appointment to the position in question and a declaration that he was improperly denied an interview. The
successful applicant, Christopher Cleveland, was present throughout the hearing but chose not to participate in the proceedings. The matter proceeded primarily by way of an agreed Statement
of Facts followed by brief oral submissions. One witness testified on behalf of the Employer. The Agreed Statement of Facts reads as follows: 1. The Grievor, Richard Sutherland, is employed
by the Ministry of Correctional Services as a Correctional Officer 2 at the Mimico Correctional Centre in Toronto.
3 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The Grievor has over 12 years seniority with the Ministry as a Correctional Officer 2, most of which was accumulated at the maximum security Metro Toronto
West Detention Centre, the remainder at Mimico. Due to a medical condition, the Grievor's wife ultimately secured a job with Canada Customs in Niagara Falls in early 1990. Because of
the location of the job of the Grievor's wife it was necessary to relocate the family to Niagara Falls. Mr. Sutherland intended to rely on his seniority to secure a position in the Niagara
Detention Centre. The Grievor lives at 7991 Post Road, Niagara Falls, less than 5 minutes from the Niagara Detention Centre, and did so at all times material to the grievance. On or
about October, 1990, the Ministry posted an opportunity Bulletin, competition number CI-2151-90, advertising one vacancy at the Niagara Detention Centre for the position of General Duty
Officer, classified as a Correctional Officer 2. A copy of the opportunity bulletin is attached as Schedule A. The Grievor applied for the posted position by sending by registered mail
a copy of his resume, clearly setting out his current address. The Senior Assistant superintendent wrote to the Grievor on October 30, 1990 advising: Unfortunately I must advise that
you do not qualify for this competition based on the area of search. I have enclosed a copy of the opportunity bulletin for your reference. A copy of this letter is attached as Schedule
B. The grievor was not given an interview as he was not within the area of search. At the time of advertising the vacancy there were 16 unclassified correctional officers employed at
the Niagara Detention Centre. The
4 Ministry interviewed the 14 qualified candidates who applied and who fell within the area of search. The policy of the Ministry of Correctional Services respecting staffing is attached
hereto as Schedule C. The policy of the Management Board of Cabinet respecting area of search is attached hereto as Schedule D. 11. The Grievor filed a grievance dated December 4, 1990
which states: I grieve the employer has acted in bad faith, fatally flawed and unjustly denied me the right to compete in Competition CE-2151-90 contrary to Articles 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
4.4 and 4.5 of the Collective Agreement. 12. The Grievor filed a second grievance dated December 18, 1990 which states: The employer has violated Article 4.1 of the Collective Agreement
The employer's actions in regards to posting positions are in bad faith. The Union submitted certain additional facts, the truth of which the Employer did not contest. However, the Employer
challenged the relevancy of the following additional facts: The grievor's wife, Debbie Sutherland, worked for the Ministry of Correctional Services until 1985 when she injured her back
as a result of a scuffle with inmates. On medical advice in 1990, while on permanent partial disability, Mrs. Sutherland was forced to secure alternate employment. She commenced work
with Canada Customs and was assigned to the position of senior customs inspector at the U . S . border. at Niagara Falls. To accommodate this new position, the Sutherlands moved to Niagara
Falls, Ontario.
5 Thereafter, the burden of commuting from Niagara Falls to the Mimico Correctional Centre in Toronto fell upon the grievor. It was agreed that at all relevant times in this competition,
management at the Niagara Regional Centre had no knowledge as to the grievor's personal circumstances. Barry McDonnell is Administrator of the Young Offenders Unit at the Niagara Detention
Centre. He co-ordinated the competition and chaired a three-person selection committee. Mr. McDonnell identified a large number of qualified candidates within the institution some 14
or more unclassified staff and three classified staff. Accordingly the decision was made, at a higher level, to limit the geographical area of search, on a "local" basis, to employees
working within the institution. In determining the area of search, the Ministry's Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual and the Ontario Manual of Administration required the identification
of at least three qualified candidates for the position. In cross-examination, Mr. McDonnell testified that he receives telephone calls "continually" from classified correctional officers
enquiring about the opportunity for work at Niagara Detention Centre. The Administrator recalled that "at least a half a dozen or more" classified staff live within the community and
work at other institutions. He candidly acknowledged that the issue of
6 other classified staff living in the area was not a factor in determining the area of search. Against this background, the grievor maintains that the Ministry is in breach of Article
4 of the collective agreement which provides: ARTICLE 4 -POSTING AND FILLING OF VACANCIES OR NEW POSITIONS 4.1 4 . 2 4 . 3 4 . 4 4.5 When a vacancy occurs in the Classified Service for
a bargaining unit position or a new classified position is created in the bargaining unit, it shall be advertised for at least ten (10) working days prior to the established closing
date when advertised within a ministry, or it shall be advertised for at least fifteen (15) working days prior to the established closing date when advertised service-wide. All applications
will be acknowledged. Where practicable, notice of vacancies will be posted on bulletin boards. The notice of vacancy shall state, where applicable, the nature and title of position,
salary, qualifications required, the hours-ofwork schedule as set out in Article 7 (Hours of Work), 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 shall be granted time off with no loss of credits to attend the interview, provided that
the time off does not unduly interfere with operating requirements. Relocation expenses shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Employer's policy.
7 The Employer relies upon the statutory management rights provision contained in s.18(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act as follows: 18. --(1) Every collective agreement
shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine,
(a) employment, appointment, complement, organization, assignment, discipline, dismissal, suspension, work methods and procedures, kinds and locations of equipment and classification
of positions; and (b) merit system, training and development, apprai sa 1 and superannuation, the governing principles of which are subject to review by the employer with the bargaining
agent, and such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction of a board. The Union placed substantial reliance on the concept of fair and
reasonable administration of management rights in collective agreements as outlined by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a recent judgment -Canadian Union of Public Employees, Metropolitan
Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 43 and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (1990), 74 O.R. 239. The thrust of the Union's position was that in the exercise of an exclusive
function under s.18(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act management must act reasonably. The Union also contends that the Employer violated the provisions of Article 4
of the collective
8 agreement by acting unreasonably in determining an arbitrarily narrow area of search and by failing to consider the grievor's application. The bad faith was said to arise in this case
because the Employer arbitrarily and unreasonably undermined the grievor's rights under Article 4 of the collective agreement. The Union cited the following authorities: OPSEU (Yvon
Lavigne) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications 561/81 (Delisle); The Judicial Review of the' Lavigne Decision dated March 22, 1983 (Reid J. ) ; OPSEU (L. Cripps) and Ministry
of Correctional Services 660/86 (Verity) ; The Judicial Review of the Cripps Decision dated November 29, 1988 (Southey J.); OPSEU (McIntyre) and Ministry of Community and Social Services
2146/87 (Roberts); OPSEU (Peiter B. Kuyntjes) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications 513/84 (Verity); Canadian Union of Public Employees. Metropolitan Toronto Civic Employees'
Union, Local 43 v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality), supra, and OPSEU (Bousquet) and Ministry of Natural Resources 541/90, 542/90, 543/90 (Gorsky). The Employer acknowledged that
the Grievance Settlement Board had jurisdiction to review for bad faith but contended that in following Ministry policies and procedures it did not act in bad faith. The Employer's position
was to the effect that it had the unrestricted statutory right to select the area of search under s.18(1) of the Act and that in the absence of language in Article 4 regarding the area
of search, the Board had no jurisdiction to review for reasonableness. The Panel's attention was drawn to the
9 following authorities: OPSEU (Yvon Lavigne) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications 561/81, supra,; OPSEU (C. Calicchia) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications
302/85, 602/85 (Roberts); OPSEU (L. Cripps) and Ministry of Correctional Services 660/86, supra,; The Judicial Review of the Cripps Decision, supra,; OPSEU (Robert Hayford) and Ministry
of Correctional Services 1119/88 (Dissanayake); OPSEU (Carson/French) and Ministry of Correctional Services 582/89 (Kirkwood); OPSEU (Union Grievance) and Ministry of Community and Social
Services 1760/89 (Roberts); E. Blake et al and Amalgamated Transit Union 1276/87 (Shime); and OPSEU (Patrick) and Ministry of Correctional Services 702/90, 704/90 (Simmons). There is
no dispute between the parties that the Employer must act in good faith in exercising its rights pursuant to s.18(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. We would agree.
That is the conclusion expressed by Vice-Chairperson Gorsky in the Bousquet case in which he thoughtfully reviewed in some detail recent judicial authority including the 1990 Metro Toronto
Judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal. In Bousquet, the grievor was complaining, in part, about the Employer's failure to grant him "training and development" opportunities which is
one of the enumerated exclusive management functions specified in s.18(1)(b) of the Act. After reviewing the rationale of three Judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Metro Police
(1981), C.P.I. (1983) and Metro Toronto (1990) Mr. Gorsky made the following relevant
10 comments as pp. 35-36: .the significant fact required to place a limitation on the unfettered exercise of a management right is the existence of a provision in the collective agreement
which would either be negated or unduly limited by a particular application of such right. As noted above, if it could be demonstrated that the Employer had discriminated against the
Grievor in denying him training and development opportunities with a view to undermining his advancement opportunities under article 4, then its actions could not be said to have been
carried out in good faith, for genuine government purposes. There is nothing in the collective agreement that requires the Employer to consider the advancement opportunities of employees.
However, it cannot use its management rights under s.18(1) of the Act in a way which would amount to a deliberate attempt to interfere with an employee s right to compete for a promotion.
The Employer cannot deliberately tilt the field with a view to preferring one employee over another. However, where in good faith and for genuine government purposes an employee is denied
a training or development opportunity, where the denial is not founded on a deliberate attempt to undermine the employee's opportunities for promotion, the decision will not be interfered
with ... And again at p. 52: There are certain significant differences between the management rights' provisions in the Metro Police, C.P.I. and Metro Toronto cases and the provisions
of s.18(1) of the Act. While it is clear that the provisions of s. 18( 1) of the Act are incorporated into every collective agreement, the "management rights" created by s. 18( 1) are
statutory in nature. In addition, the Act reinforces the nature of the exclusive functions reserved to management by providing: "...such matters will not be the subject of collective
bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction of a board. In the Bousquet Decision, Mr. Gorsky properly states that bona fides may have a broad or narrow meaning depending on the context.
We make no attempt to repeat his detailed discussion as to the two
11 aspects of good faith except to say that the second aspect of his analysis is virtually synonymous with reasonableness. On the facts before him, Mr. Gorsky stated as follows as pp.
62-63: Where the Employer cannot be shown to have denied the Grievor's requests for reasons which are "improperly motivated or maliciously intended," such as his being a francophone;
for reasons prohibited by s.4 of the Code or because of a desire to impose disguised discipline, the Employer will have satisfied the first aspect of the good faith test identified in
Shaw (410/88 Watters). As stated in Shaw (at p. 5): "Clearly the bad faith, if found, must be relatively serious." Where there is some evidence permitting an objective assessment that
the decision flowed logically from the facts, the Employer will have satisfied the second aspect of the good faith test (reasonableness). On the limited facts placed before us and in
light of the paucity of the evidence adduced, there is simply no evidence to support a finding of bad faith in the Employer's determination of the area of search. As indicated previously,
management was unaware of the nature of the grievor's particular circumstances. In our opinion, the evidence of other classified correctional officers living in the Niagara area and
enquiring about job opportunities at the Niagara Detention Centre is insufficient on which to base a finding of bad faith. We are satisfied that given the number of potential qualified
candidates available for the position within the institution, and for obvious reasons of business efficiency in accordance with Ministry policy, the Employer reasonably limited the area
of search under s.18(1) of the Act. Similarly, we must find that the Employer was justified in
12 declining to process the grievor's application. Having determined the area of search as it did, the Employer would indeed be acting in bad faith, we think, if it had considered the
merits of the grievor's application. In the result, this grievance must be dismissed. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 17th day of February, 1992 R. L. VERITY, Q.C. -"Addendum to follow
T. BROWES-BUGDEN -MEMBER .I.. M. O'TOOLE -MEMBER
4/17 11:31 1991 AT 3265052 page 4 (PRINTED page 4) page 004 '91 1 1 I2 FROM CENTRAL REGION Ministry of correc t ional Services Ontario Ministere des Services correctionnels Opportunity
Bulletin Annonce d'emploi competition CI-21 51-90 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT POSITION: CLASSIFICATION: CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 2 GENERAL DUTY OFFICER (I position SCHEDULE: SALARY
l o c a t i o n Nlagara Detention centre 4,7 40 hours per week $17.17 -$19.65 per hour Thorold, Ontario SCHEDULE "A" duties The Niagara Detention Centre requires mature, responsible
individuals who can functlon In a structured disciplined setting, to perform a full range of duties related to the correctional c a r e control and supervision of adult Inmates and young
offenderr on a rotational shift basis The Nlagara detention Centre Is a multl-functional maximum security Instltution with a current capacity for 182 adult Inmates and a new secure custody
unit with a capacity for 20. young offend ers qualification Ontario Grade 12 or formal proff of an equivalent educational standing; satisfactory related work experience: good oral and
written communication skills, developed interpersonal skills and ability to work effectively with young offenders, adult inmates supervison, peers volunteers etc,; ability to exercise
sound judgement and react to abnormal situations; knowledge of relevant legislation regulatlons, policies etc knowledge of security technlques and equipment willingness and ability to
work rotating shifts. weekends and holidays ability to meet Mlnlstry medical and physical standards Including proven ability lo maintain satisfactory attendance successful completion
of Ministry correctional officer training and one year's current satisfactory experience as a Correctional officer 1 (suitable candidates lacking the fatter criteria will be required
to underfill at the Correctional Officer 1 level satisfactory attendance and work record. Selected candidates may be required to periodically rotate through both adult and young offender
work assignments NOTE! Appllcanls will be required to bare successfully completed Ministry Central recruitment testing, unless currently employed on the classified staff as a Correctional
Officer 1 or Qualified and eligible applicants are Invited to submit an application/resume stating their qualifications and work experience not later than 4:30 p.m, on November 2, 1990
to: R Cole ntendent Nlagara Detention Centre. AREA OF search of the Nlagara detention Centre. This competiti ion restricted to classified and unclassified employees posting DATE: October
22, 1990 CLOSING DATE: November 2, 1990
Niagara Deten tion Centre October 30, 1990 Mr. Richard Y. Sutherland 7991 Post Road Niagara Falls Ontario LZH ZLZ Dear Mr. Sutherland: SCHEDULE “B” SUBJECT: COMPETITION CI-2151-90 General
Duty Officer Correctional Officer 2 Niagara Detention Centre I am in receipt of your application/resume for the above captioned c mpetition. ortunately I must advise you that you do
not qualify for this competition I have enclosed a copy of the opportunity Un based on the area of sear Bulletin for your reference.‘ I trust this information is to your satisfaction.
Should you have any further questions, please contact me at (416) 227-6321, Extension 201 during normal business hours, Barry S. McDonnell Senior Assis t ant Superin tendent BSM:tm C.C.
Competition File
Manual Name Page I i Section PE-03-0 I AREA OF SEARCH REFERENCE purpose POLICY/PROCEDURE PERSONNEL POLICY & PROCEDURES MANUAL STAFFING SCHEDULE "C" November 1985 Manual of Administration,
Volume 2, Section 5 To a t t r a c t sufficient numbers of eligible and qualified candidates for a vacancy. The Area of Search for Bargaining Unit and Management Recruitment up to and
including AM-16 The manager, in consultation with the regional personnel administrator, will decide on the area of search based on his/her knowledge of available resources and the guidelines
contained in section 5, Ontario Manual of Administration, Volume II. Provided that due consideration is given to these guidelines and to the requirements to identify at least three candidates,
a manager can select from the following geographical areas of search: -local -restricted to employees working in a specific --regional or ministry-wide -OPS-wide institution or office
employees residing within 40 km of work location In addition to defining the geographical area of search a competition may be designated as falling within one of the following three
categories: -'Open' -such a competition is 'open' to all members of the general public. As such, all applications should be entertained. However, postings of the competition notice may
be restricted. -Restricted to classified employees. -Restricted to unclassified and classified employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services. The Area of Search for Positions at
the AM-I7 level and above The area of search for staff at the AM-I7 level and above is to be ministry-wide unless otherwise approved by the Human
Ontario Manual of Ad ministration POLICY S t a f f ing THE STAFFING PROCESS (continued) AREA OF SEARCH Definitions: "Area of Search "Res t r i c t e d Co mp e t it ion "Open Competition"
Considerations i n Determining Area: Applicants and Area of Search: SCHEDULE "D The area deemed necessary by management to a t t r a c t e l i g i b l e and q u a l i f i e d candidates
f o r a vacancy. . A campetition t h a t is l i m i t e d to: c i v i l s e r v a n t s ; employees of those agencies which have a r e c i p r o c a l s t a f f i n g agreement; and
released employees to whom Article 24 of the Working Conditions Agreement and page 5-57-3 of t h i s volume apply competition to which c i v i l s e r v a n t s , u n c l a s s i f i
e d s t a f f , Crown employees and the public may apply. NOTE: Application of these d e f i n i t i o n s may change due to extenuating circumstances i n which case m i n i s t r i
e s w i l l be so advised by the C i v i l Service Commission. The following s h a l l be considered in determining a reasona.b l e area of s e a r c h : a l l relevant A c t s , p o
l i c i e s , procedures and programs the size of the c a n d i d a t e p o p u l a t i o n r e q u i r e d to r e l a t i n g to s t a f f i n g a c t i o n s ; i d e n t i f y not
less than three q u a l i f i e d c a n d i d a t e s ; t h e need to provide career o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c i v i l se rvan t s the need, when r e c r u i t i n g o u t s
i d e t h e c i v i l s e r v i c e , t o ensure t h a t c i v i l s e r v a n t s are given o p p o r t u n i t i e s . t o apply and t o be c o n s i d e r e d ; the urgency and cost
in s a t i s f y i n g the s t a f f i n g needs of, the ministry program. . Only a p p l i c a n t s hin t h e d e s i g n a t e d area of search s h a l l be