Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0031.Bent.89-03-20 'c -. ' ' ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE '.,' 'CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO ' GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 1'80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG IZB- SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T£t~PHONE 180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST. TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG IZ8o BUREAU 21~O 003~/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN A~BITRATION ~Un~er THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before T~E GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU ( Bent } Grlevor The Cro~n :in Rl~ht of Onta~lo .(Ministry of Tran, portatlon) ~ployer / Before: ?. Knopf Vice-Chairperson G. Nabl Member M. Wood Membe~ For the 8rlevor: C. AWllkey ' Counsel Cornish & Assoclates . . " Barristers & SOlicitors For the Employer: 'P. Pasleka Counsel Wink]er, FS]lon & Wakel¥ Barristers & sollcltors For the Inctlmbent: George Close on his own behalf' · Hearlnas: $u]¥ 2, 1986 Decembe~ .1.6, .LS._a8 January 16, 1989 DECISION This is a grievance in which the Union 'is protesting the fact thaC the Grievor, Delroy Bent, was not selected for. an interview in a competition' for the job of Safety. Instruction Officer Trainee. The remedy requested is that the. competition be rerun and that the Grievor be granted an interview. The incumbent, George Clos'e, was present throughout the proceedings but chose not to participate in the hearing. As the ~ob .title suggests, the position the grievor se'eks, involves the Promotion and investigation of heal'th and safety concerns in the work' place, .The Competition was advertised in December 1987 and was conducted as an open competition. The advertisement sets Out what management claimed to be seeking in' the candidates: · ' SAFETY INSTRUCTION OFF]~CER 1 ~ ~ ~ (Schedule A) $28,,100 ~ 31,700 ( open ) Use your skills in the Ministry of Tranportati.on, central region safety section, to assist regional safety officers in all aspects of occupational health and safety. YoU will develop/implement programs; research/collect safety information, visit work areas to ensure ministry employees are protected from known hazards; investigate health· ~ and~ safety complaints; recommend protective clothing and devices or changes to work methods; conduct first aid, Keyman, back care and other Safety-related courses; monitor and investigate WCB claims. Location~ 5000 Yonge St. Willowdale, with regular, travel. Qualifications~ thorough knowledge of instruction and accident-prevention techniques and relevant occupa:ional health and safety legislation, including designated substance regulations; ability to investigate, identify workplace problems and - 2 - recommend solutions; St. John Ambulance instructor's certificate; knowledge cf..and experience in audiOmetric testing and hearing conservation program; good knowledge of hazardous chemicals, wastes and relevant regulations; experience in compiling health and'Safety, reports, keeping. Confidential records and reports; communication skills: Ontario driver's licence. A number of very highly trained and qualified individuals responded to the advertisement. The credentials range through degrees such as a Master of Science, University. DiPlomas, Masters of Enginee.rin9 in Industrial Hygiene, Masters Of Science in Medical Biology as well. as extensive work experience, in related fields. The applications were reviewed by the Personnel .. Section which eliminated any ~completely unsuitable applications for considers{ion. Serious applications were passed to the Chair of. ~the Interviewing Selection Committee;'~? . Michael Wilson. Mr. Wiison is the Manager of the Regional Occupational Health and Safety Office. His COmmittee also consisted of Larry~ Brant, the Manager of Administrative · Services, Central Region, 'and Randy Plener, a health and safety consultant from Downsview. The Committee met to§ether to review the 21 applications and accompanyin9 resumes which. it had received from the Personnel'Office. It then-set about tO "pre-screen" or select which of-the 21 applications would proceed further to an interview. It determined eight ca:egorieS to 'judge the ap~iicants based upon. the language of the ,advertisment quoted .above and upon the job specification. The' eight categories were: I ~ Knowledge of instruction and accident Knowiege of Occupa.tioual ~{ealth and Safety Act and Regulations III~bility to investigate and identify work place probl ems - 3 - St. John Ambulance Instructor's Certificate V KnowledGe and experience in audiometric ~nd Hearing Conservation ProGrammes VI KnowledGe of hazardous substances VII - P. xperience completing records and reports VIII Good communication Skills The three members of the Selection and Interview Panel reviewed all the 21 applications and rated them against the eight categories. Basically, they worked by consensus ,to determine if a candidate satisfied them fhat s/he met each of the eight specified"r~quirements. If the panel were satisfied that one of the criteria had been met, the candidate received a point for that criterion. On the other hand, if 'the panel was.sat~Sfie(~ that the criterion had no.t 'been met,' then no point ~was Given. If the panel was in question as to any matter, a question mark was indicated and no point' was Given: Ap'plicants who received seven or more points were interviewed. Ir~ the result, six people were selected for an interview.· "The grievor .received six points in the ratings and was therefore not interviewed. ~{e objects to the selection of the criteria and' to. the way he was rated in ·comparison to the Other applicants. The objection to the choice of the criteria relates to the fact that th'e criteria did not include one important component which was .listed in the job spe~cification. This is the requirement of a thorough knowledge of Ministry policies, procedures, work practices an, d.equipment used and 'relevant le9islation. Mr. Wilson says '" that this was specifically. not considered as a i~ar~ of the criteria in the.pre-screeninG 'so as to avoid unfairness to applicants from outside the Civil. Service. Mr. Plener also explained ~ha.t' the Committee felt that this aspect of the job could easily be acquired on the job, especially because this Was a trainee position. However, it was admitted that this~ type' of. knowledge would have been an asset. It was not considered as a criterion in the pre-screening process. }{ad ,it been, the ~rievor Clearly would have received a point for' this and the 'outside candidates would not.. ~' There is some Confusion in the evidence as to ,how .applicants were~rated in relation to each of the .specific criterion. In Mr. Wilson's ex'amination-in-chief, he said that the panel assessed the applications solely on the basis of what was revealed in the written application and attached resumes. Personal knowledge of the applicants was not considered. He s~aid in cross-examination that this was done to keep the process unbiased. }{oweve'r, Mr, Wilson admitted that the successful 'candidate scored a point on knowledge of audiometric.testinG even t~ough he did not reveal anything · ' -. specific in ~his,-application to indicate· such a.qualificat~on. Mr. ~Wil'son could offer no explanation for this, and the obvious .implication that could be drawn is that someone. injected the element of personal knowledge about Mr. Close the selection process. Mr~ Plener suggested that the panel .. : was ~ relyinG upon the knowledge of the functions performed by Mr. CloSe in,his ac'tin9 capacity as the assistant to the Safety Officer'where he would certainly have Gained the.. nece~sary.experience in audiometri¢ testing: .This latter explanation is credible, but it is not,consistent with Mr. Wilson.'s evidence, ~Owever, Mr. Plener was explicit in sayia9 that the panel relied upon the resumes submitted and ac. cepted statements in the resumes as 'true. Ne was adamant in saying that the panel never discussed any knowledge of the applicants as people.. But he did admit that the panel drew '' "·upon' its collective knowledge of the positions and educational backgrounds held by. the applicants, Part of the grievor's, complaint, is .that the panel' ignored personal knowledge about him held by Mr. Wilson, but used their preconceptions about certain positions to' unjustly render suspect one of his claimed abilities. For example, the ·panel put a question mark beside the grievor in the category of ,"ability to investigate and identify work place problems." They did so as a result of the followin9 ·~ statement of Mr. Bent in his application: As past co-chairman of the Ministry Union Joint Health & Safety Committee that deal ~sic~ ~ith-' 'accident prevention & Occupational Health & Safety legislations [sic] includinG designated substance. ... TraininG at Ontario Federation of Labour Centre. Durint [sic] that time part of my responsibilities were to identify workplace problems - investigate with some recommended solution - most time, this is been done by regular field visits. [sic] Mr. P!ener·admitted that he would have accepted that statement at face value if he hadjhad no'knowledge on the subject or if the statement had not.appeared, to be self-contradictory. But Mr. Plener did draw upon his own'~ knowledge of the role of Level 2 Co-Chair which told him that people' in that .position do not in fact conduct investigations , or acquire the skills the panel was seeking. Thus, .this statement appeared to the panel on its face to be incorrect and suspect. Therefore, the 9rievor was not credited with a point in this category... But it is clear from the evidence that Mr. Bent ha~ in fact conducted investigations as a Level 1 ·Safety Rep and even on occasion as a Level 2 Safety Co-Chair. The grievor neglected or forgot to reveal the Level l'experience 'on his application. This was known or.had been known t6 Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson said that that knowledge had "slipped his mind" during the screening, process. .We find this Claim highly sus, pett and distasteful. Bug the maBagement evidence-.is consistent .that no matter what, they would not have let personal knowledge aboUt Mr. Bent's actual experience supplement or detract from~his application. However, members of the panel did use their experience and knowledge about positions to assess the apparent credibility of Mr. Bent's claim to have a certain qualification on the basis of the factors that .he stated in his application. Mr.' P!ener admits that had he been aware of Mr. Bent's experience at Level 1, Mr. Plener at ·least Would have given the grievor.a point in this category. Thus, the grievor was left in the position that the Committee was refusing~ to let.any personal knowledge .of-an applicant su. pplement or detract from'the information stated in the application. -However, the members of 'the Committee did draw upon their collective experience to assess the statements made in the applications. Thus, when' the grievor made a statement claiming to have "acquired experience in a certain position which the committee knew would' not normally resul-t in such experience, the "Committee questioned the credibility of Mr. Bent's ~¢laim. Bdt the committee did not draw upon Mr. Wilson's knowledge of Mr. Bent to dispel any.suspicion. Mr. Plener also admitted that the panel did draw Upon its knowledge of positions and other institutions' training. pro(3rammes to assess candidates. For~ example, even though one candidate, MG (Exhibit 2 tab 7) revealed no experience in audiometr~c testinG per se in his application or coverinG material, that' candidate received a point in this category because of Mr. Plener's knowledge of that candidate's course ! of studie~ in acquiring an Occupational Health and Safety Diploma at McMaster University. Mr. Plener knew that in order to acquire such a diploma, the candidate would have -'received formal traininG in audiometric testing and' thus credited the candidate for this criterion even though it Was not specifically mentioned in his application.. The grievor also.failed to receive any rating 'points 'in two other categories. These ,were "knowledge of audiometric and Hearing Conservation Programmes" and "Good communication skills,' Ther'e is no question that the-griever has no formal or practical training in audiometric testing or the Hearing Conservation programme .except as a recipient of the tests. This was all he claime~4 in his application and there is no *serious objection to the rating except to the extent .that other applicants such as MG were credited with such knowledge Without having specifically revealed it. The communication skill rating was .based on an assessment of the g~ievor's application form itself. The form does reveal a significant amount of minor spelling, grammatical' and .~ typographical errors. However, it is quite readable. But the panel considered it revealed insufficient quality for the standards it was seeking. On the other hand, Mr. Bent's evidence is .that he regularly fills out written reports including those related :to health and safety, fie.has done this for a number of years and there is no evidence of any criticism of these reports by management.. Hence, it appears that he has been able. to satisfy.management of .his written communication skills to date. But the panel was not ¢onten't with the level of skill revealed on his apDlication forml Another aspect of the evidence presented centres~. around the fact that the griever had applied for three other jobs as a Safety. Officer in the recent past.. One application was ~or a higher ranking Safety Officer 'than the trainee position being sought here. 'In all these previous applications, the griever was granted an interview. In the .~last of these competitions in 1986, he was rated within 1.5% of the present incumbent after the interview. On the ~ pre-screeninG he was considered qualified in the areas of ability 'to carry out investigations and oral and written communicattoa skills. It is to be recalled that he did not receive adequate ratings in these categories in this' competition. [~owever,' Mr. 'Wilson was the Chair in the previo~'s selection panels· But to put all this in its proper perspective, the-evidence on the 1986 competition shows us that it was a closed competition where only four criteria were used for the selection. The grievor"s application form itself was considerably more detailed and articulate than the one presented in the competition in question here. We have also been advised that the Union is grieving the .use o'f the. limited criteria'in the 1986 competition. Thus, the two competitions 'appear to have been. quite different. The evidence about the previous competitions' underscores the evidence of the 9rievor's strong interest in obtaining a job in the health and safety areas. Re has been with. the Ministry for 17 years and is presently holding 'the post of Landscape Crewman. But for the last 7 years he .has' been actively involved in' health aad safety activities."' He was elected the Level 1 :health and safety Representative for his area in' 1985' This required him to do regular work pl~ace inspections, follow/ups and to write reports on~ the results. It.familiarized him with work place hazards and investigation techniq~ues. Further, from 1982 to 198~6, he was the elected CO-Chairman of the Level 2 Bealth and Safety Committee' which is a joint Union and Management committee. In this'capacity, he reviewed motor vehicle accidents, personal injuries, fatalities and 'made field visits and inuestigations upon request. 'We heard Very little evidence about the successful candidate, Mr. Close. · We do know his seniority is g~eater - than' the grievor"s. '}{is 'application form did, on its face, ""clearly reveal qualificatioas for each of the eight pre-screening.selection criteria, except in the area 0f audiometri¢ testing. However, his application also reveals that he was on temporary assignment to the Central Region Safety Office and was assisting the Safety Officer with his daily duties .at the time of the application. Essentially, the incumbent was on ~emporary assignment to the position which was th'e subject of this 'competition. This indicated to Mr. Plener at least, that Mr. Close woUld have ·learned about audiometric testing in this temporary position. But, by all' sfandards, Mr. Cl°se's application was sufficiently revealing to warrant an interview be.cause .he would have, even without the audiometric testing, rated 7 out of~8 and thus would have received an intervi~ew'. We heard no evidence about the selection process after the interview stage... The Argument . At the outset of the case, counsel, had agreed that' the Employer. would present" evidence and argument first even' .... though..there was no agreement as to where .the ultimate onus lay in this case. Thus'~ we shall recite the arguments in the' order that they were presented to us. Counsel for the ,Employer argued that management had fulfilled'its burden of satisfying ArtiCle'4.3 of the collective agreement. The successful candidate had more seniority than .the grievor and i.t was. argued that the onus was then upon the Union to show that the grievor was ~the more qualified of the two candidates. It was stressed that the grievor was found to be lacking in' three properly determined. area;~ and thus did not warrant an interview. In any event, it was argued 'that the-Employer had acted reasonably in · categorizing the factors or criteria in' the Pre-screening. It was said that at the initial screening stage the onus ',~ ought to be ~n 'the applicants to identify their background and relate it to the job for which they are applying. The grievor may have failed himself by failing to identify his qualificat~.ons properly 'and management should' not bear the responsibility for this. In any event, management' did not c.oncede., that· the grievor Was qualified.' Indeed, management claimed' that a reasonable person reviewing the application ,- would not have rated it differently than the panel. 'We were' referred'.to the decision' of Borecki and Ministry of Natural Re_sources, GSB'File 256/82 (Swinton). Counsel for the Union ar'Gued that Article 4.3 imposes an obligation on 'the Employer to decide· upon the relative ability of the candidates by objective standards. It was conceded that there is no obligation to interview all candidates, but it was stressed that the pre-screening procedures must also-satisfy the obligations of Article 4.3 and guarantee fairness of treatment·and evenhandedness to,all candidates. Where no interview is. 9ranted, it was said ·that the onus is upon 'the ~ Employer to establish that it acted properly in denying the interview. 'It was also argued that the onus is on the Employer to explain why the grievor was screened out in this' con{pe'tition, where he. has been previously' interviewed and considered qualified for the job. Union counsel also seriously questioned Mr. Wilson's failure to. satisfy any questions in the panel's collective mind about the grievor's health and safety abilities because of' Mr. Wilson's knowledge of the griever's experience. Counsel. for the Union also objected to the determina'tion of gualificat-ions and criteria because they failed to reflect the job in a "balanced way". It was argued that the Employer was not fair by failih9 to consider the qualifications Such as knowledge of Ministry procedures because it fails to give credit and advantages to Ministry employees. Further, it was argued' that the Employer faiIed .·..,to fairly ·evaluate the grievor's qualifications for the .job such as his knowledge of ·Ministry policies and toxi~c .. chemicals. In addition', it was argued that-different standards 'of review were applied to the grievo~r' fhan other applicants. Specifically, it was sa£d that the panel was prePared~to accept ~1i Other applications at face ~alue .and the applicants were given the benefit of the~doubt. Whereas, the evidence revealed that the grievor was given no benefit of the doubt on his.appliration, and his application was considered suspec.t even though Mr. Wilson could ·have disposed of the suspiCion. Further, 'it was argued that the Panel failed to make use of the information it had or could have easily obtained from personnel files tb dispel any questions. The Board was asked to query how it could be that the grievor was not considered even qualified fo¢ an interview ·when he had been considered qualified for an interview, previously. Specifically, we' were re'ferred to the narrowness between· the rating of t~e grievor and '~he present incumbent in ther previous competition. " Counsel for the Union also questioned the· ratings 9ranted to the grievor especially in the area of .. ,commUnication skills when 'he had worked fo~ the Ministry for so many 'years, completed reports even on health and safety ~ matters and had never been Criticized for them. Counsel for '-',. the U~ion als° went through the .grievor's application and compared/it to the other applicatfons, in detail showing' where the panel had supplemented knowledge of positions and eduoational'inst'itutions to assist other applicants but had failed to do so for the grievor. ' In conclusion, the Union argued that the grievor had "i r not been properly screened, and had not been' given the same ~ "considerations as others. It was said that Article 4.3 had been violated. We were asked to order that the competition be rerun and that the 9rievor 'be granted an interview. We > .were referred to the following cases: Kuynt~es and La_rman_, · 920/S5, 921/85 (GandZ), Borecki, 256/82 .(Swinton), Jenkinson and' Dickey, 2268/87, 2269/87 (Kates),' McCormick, 1141/~4 L(Roberts), Pe_~ar__c~, 441/82 (Verity), MacLellan and DeGrandi__s, (Samuels) and ~o__rsley, 347/81 (Draper). The Decisioh The question for this Board' to decide is whether the grievor was improperly denied an interview. The rights and obligations of the parties arise under Article 4.3 of the collective agreement which provides: In filling a vacancy, the employer shall give primary considerations to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualifications and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous s'ervice shall be a · consideration. The Grievance Settlement :Board has often been asked to consider the rights and responsibili'ties of' the parties in terms of interviews' for job .competitions. 'The jurisprudence is well summarized in the · .'. It has been well established in the Board's jurisprudence that the employer must use a process of decision-making which is designed to consider the .~elative'qualifications and ability of a candidate in a competition which will ensure that sufficient relevant information is adduced before the decision-makers so that they are.able to make /an informed choice (Remark, 149/77; ~n, 9/78). On .the other hand, there is no obligation to give interviews to all who apply. In Bo___~recki (356/82) the Board noted that questions of efficiency and cost come into play when there are many 'qualified applicants and this view was reiterated-in Colacci (912/82) and Balics If the eventual decision about who gets a job is to be based on relative qualifications and aDili~ies, it follows that all steps leading up to that decision must also satisfy ~he 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 screens out better qualified candidates, 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. ThUs, we must lobk' closely at the pre-screeninG process to make sure that it was done in a "comprehensive and fair manner". In 'this regard, the Onus seems to be on the Employer to show that it acted properly.~.See Borecki, s~upra. First, let.us examine the .Pre-screening selection criteria themselves. The Union's main criticism of the criteria seems to be that "knowledge of Ministry policies, procedures, work practices and equipment used, and relevant legislations" is a reguir~tent in the job Specification but was not made a criterion in the pre-screening process; The Union considered· that this denied bargaining unit members the advantage of having their qualifications considered fairly as required Dy·Article 4.3. We do not accept this argument. At the pre-screening stage in an open competition, it does not seem inappropriate to design Criteria to give equal opportunity to all candidates. Whether the specific .. knowledge~ ought or should have been part of the.criteria in the ultimate Selection is an interesting question that need not be addressed in this case. But keeping in mind the EmplOyer's right to·screen out. ca~dida'tes in order to hold an efficient and practical interview process, .we can see nothing unfair about a decision to treat all candidates equally at' the first stage in an open competition.. We also can~ see nothing improper about the selection of the other criteria used in the pre-screening process. All the stated· criteria rela~te to ~theLjob. They do not amount to a'change or alte~ration in Job requirements from the, advertisement. Counsel for the Union was able to cross-exami~e effectively and' raise questions about whether the panel may have ·been looking for more than one could reasonably assume from the stated criteria, especially in the area'of .audiometric testing. It is to be recalled that the . - advertisement called for knowledge and experience in audiometrio testing.· But Mr. Plener's cross-examination seems, to reveal that he was-looking for more formal training. However, it is clear from the actual selection of the Panel that the Committee did, not impose a formal training- requirement upon th'e candidates. Instead, {hey properly .- · ~ equated formal training with knowledge and experience. Therefore, we find no fault with the ·setting and utilization · of the~ other selection criteria in this competition. · .... We turn now. to the 'much more difficult question'..of ' .' -whether the grievor's ap'pl i ca ti on was treated fairly in '.. comparison .to the ·others,· We can certainly sympathize with - ' " the' 9rievor's perception that his application was treated' :' [' .,. differently thah the others, His claim to be capable of ".. Conducting inspectios's and writing reports was questioned and '"' -therefore discounted despite the fact that he clearly had · done so in ,the past without criticism and this was known- tO , . the Chair.of. the Committee personally. On. the other hand~ strangers' applications were given the benefit of- the doubt about claimed capabilitie-~ and in fact were supplemented with Committee Members' knowledge about candidates' sta~ed positions or educational backgrounds. This process worked to the disadvantage of the Qrievor, However, the evidence' does show that the applicants were treated consistently. The selection.pane'l seems to have made a distinction between utilizing knowledge of the candidates as individuals .as .opposed to knowledge of the details about educational programmes or positions they stated to haveicompleted or held. In other words, the Committee did not draw upon'knowledge of a person to supplement or detract from a'n application,' ev.en if a question arose. However.,* the members of the Committee did draw upon their knowledge in an area to question or amplify information presented in the application. 'This is perfectly proper 'and' indeed demanded in cases such as Jenkinson and Dickey, _supra, where the panel was told to give effect to knowledge of applicant's previous job duties. Thus,. [he panel found itself in a position of suspecting Mr. Bent's claim to. be able' to do inspections on the basis of what he claimed ~ecause the 'panel's own experience told them that the qualifications he. offered would not lead to the experience he claimed. The panel did not resolve the suspicion with the personal knowledge available to it from Mr. Wilson. Bad the panel done so,~ it must be pointed out the grievor would have received an unfair advantage over the other applicants because no other candidate had the benefit'of additional' persOnal ihput from Committee Members. Thus, the grievor was 'treated the 'same as · other candidates 'in that the personal gUalifications that he may .have had Put which he did not include on the form were not considered. Instead, th~ me~bers of the Com~ittee 'imPosed ~heir own knowledge 'about the stated positions held by the appl ica .n ts in other to assess the applications.. ~It may even be that we are wrong and that the Committee might have been acting unfairly by rejecting personal knowledge of the 9rievor to al'lay some suspicions abou~ the qualifications he claimed. 'To have done so would have .only been ~sing objective information to clarify an ~mbiguity created by his unsophisticated and sparse ..application.. But~even if that had happened, the grievor must still be considered to have been left lacking in two critical areas in the pre-screening process., namely, knowledge of audiometric, testing and a hearing conservation programme, and the ability to communicate effectively'orally and in wri.ting.- With re9ard to .the heari, n9 qualifications, the 9riev°r simply did not have them. With regard to his writin9 ability, h~is' application does reveal several deficiencies. ' There was not a 10t of evidence as to the level of ability required in a Safety Officer Trainee. But judging from the application alone, we do not find the evidence warrants Our interfering with the Committee's assessment that his abilities were not sufficient. Further, we do not agree with the Union .that the members of the Committee should have used .their personal knowledge 'of his communication skills over the last few years to judge him qualified~ At the pre-screenin9 stage, all the Committee needed to rely upon was the application itself. Therefore, no matter how' the application of the grievor is assessed, he would or should not have scored points in two or three of t~he properly.Selected criteria. " The COmmittee chose onI. y.to interview' candidateS'who scored at least seven out of e'ight points. At the highest, the ~:' grievor could only score six. As stated above, efficiency' / considerations allow management to choose not to interview everyone. See B_orecki, 'supra.'. Management is entitled to fairly select only the best of the candidates to interview. · When ranked together with the other applications, the grievor's application could fairly be ranked belOW 'those selected for interviews. In order to succeed in'this Grievance~ the 9rievor would have to convince us that the screening ,process eleminated him as a better 'or even equally qualified candidate. · The evidence simply does not establish that; We. do not wonder over the grievor's anger at being ranked out of an interview here when he has been .interviewed three times before for the same or a higher rated Job. However, that position of the griev'or denies the basic fact' that each Competition is different, occurs at a different ' time and with different competing applicants. To state the obvious, a competition is, by definition, a rankinG of applications according .t° ability. Most, if not all, serious ~i. applicants may be quail-fled for {he job. But that ·does not. ' entitle them all to an interview. This particular competition was 'open to the public and elicited some incredibly well trained and skilled appiicants. The evidence we have on the previous competitions does not rev'eal such a sophisticated or qualified roster of candidates. The grievo~ is certainly highly motivated and has had tr~inin9 'in h~.alth and safety issues. But his knowledge, training and experience does not rank as high as many of the o'ther candidates. Further, his previous application form was far , more articulate and detailed than in the present competition. The previous application form revealed far more detail and left. no doubt about his qualifications. -it is unfortunate -. ~that the application form in this competition was not comp. leted with 'the same care and detail. But the panel cannot'-De faulted 'for that. In conclusion, we were impressed with the grievor's dedication a~d interest in health and safety issues. ~e is undoubtedly a valuable member of the work force ·and his ' ambitions to pursue work in this area should be encouraged. This grievance over the competition did reveal several questionable matters as to how the screening process was conducted. But on the whole, the overwhelming ,evidence is that the grievor was facing very stiff competition for this job. }{is own application was unfortunately a poor reflection of h~[s abilities, whereas the other application's revealed some extremely impressive candidates. All applications were treated' consistently. The Committee could have perhaps given the 9rievor the benefit of ~he doubt and credited him with investigative abilities. But even had they done so, he would not have ranked with "the other candidates who Were interviewed. Therefore, we must conclude that the Employer has satisfied us that the screening process was fairly and · consistently 'carried out. The grievance must be denied. In closing, we with to thank~both counsel for the .way -they. conducted ,this case'." The Board greatly appreciates . their skill and ~udgment in conducting a case that concentrated the evidence upon the relevant areas. In · . addition, we appreciate the co-operation evident in the presentation of the evidence. Counsels' able and thorough arguments were alsO of great benefit to the Board and a credit to their ¢tients.~ DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 20th day of March, 1989. ~ '- G. Nabi,' Member Member--