Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1395.Coulter & Charleau.91-04-02 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUtTE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/7'EL~PHONE: (4 '16I 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTARtOi, A45G IZ8 FACStM~LE/T~L~'COPtE : (#?6) $26-~396 1395/88,1304/88 IN THE M~TTER OF AN ARBITRATION Unde= THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEFANCE SETTLEMENT BOAP. D BETWEEN OPSEU (Coulter/Charleau) Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) ~.mployer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson S. Urbain Member D. Daugharty Member FOR THE R. SteDhenson GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE C. Slater BMPLOYER Senior Counsel Human Resources Secretariat Management Board of Cabinet EOR THE " D. Ivey THIRD P~RTY"' Counsel Kingsmill, Ross, McBride HEARINGt June 8, October 25, November 5, November 16,December 12, 1990. The two (~) ~rievors were unsuccessful applicants for the position of Volunteer Pro,ram Coordinator at the Sprucedale Youth Centre, a secure custody facility for Young Offenders~ located in Simcoe, Ontario. Both grievors have worked at the Centre as full- time Correctional Officers, or in equivalent positions, for a number of years. Ms. Coulter has been so employed for ten il0} years. Ms. Charleau has been at the facility for nine (9) years. As between the two (2) grievors, Ms. Charleau has the greater overall seniority. The successful candidate, Ms. S. Sage, previously worked at the Centre on a contract basis in early 1988. That period of employment ceased prior to the date of the competition which is the subject of the instant dispute.. The competition in its early 'stages followed the normal course. An Opportunity Bulletin was posted for the position on September 12, 1988. It described the responsibilities of the job as follows: " To co-ordinate volunteer programmes in a secure custody young offender institution. To assume responsibility for the centre's community and public relations functions and activities related to volunteer programmes." The closing date for the submission of applications was September 23, 1988. The position posted was regular part~time (R.P.T.) requiring twenty {20) hours of work per week. Seven (7) persons were ultimately interviewed in October, 1988. The selection panel was co~prised of Ms. B. Malloy, Mr. W. Sardine, and Mr. M. O'Neal. Ms. Malloy is a Program Co-ordinator at Sprucedale Youth Centre. She acted as Chairperson of the panel. Ms. MalIoy is responsible for supervising the Volunteer Co-ordinator. Mr. Sardine is the gecreation Director at the Centre. Prior to 1987, his .position included the Volunteer Coordinator function. Mr. O'Neai is a representative of the Employer's Regional Office. ~:one of the panel members were responsible for the grievors' supervision at the date of the competition. Ms. Matloy had previously supervised Ms. Charleau for a brief period in 1987. Mr. Sardine had supervised Ms. Sage for a three (3) month period in early 1988 while she filled a short-term contract in the arts and crafts area. · A Questionnaire, together with suggested answers, was prepared for the panel. It was first reviewed by them on the morning of the interviews. At or about the same time,, the panel read the applications and resumes of the candidates. The aforementioned Questionnaire was divided into five (5) parts. Part A, titled 'Experience', was graded out of twenty (20) marks. .Part B, titled 'Education', was graded out of ten (I0) marks. Five (5) marks were allotted 'to Part C relating to 'Attendance'. Part D, headed 'Knowledge And Personal Suitability', which was comprised of nine (9) questions, was graded out of a possible fifty (50) marks. Lastly, Part'E relating to 'communication Skills' was graded out of twenty ~(20) marks. All of th~ questions contained in the Questionnaire were asked of each candidate. Specific questions were not asked, however, in respect of Part E. Rather, the candidates were assessed under several rel'ated headings on the 2 basis of how they responded to the other questions. Each panel member asked certain of these questions. They also separately scored the responses given. The scoring material to this dispute was as follows: M. O'Neal B. Malloy -W. Sardine Total Score Susan Charleau 64 68 67.5 199.5 Elaine Coulter 68.5 66 70 204.5 Sally Sage 81 84 83 248 Ms, Sage received the highest score of. those persons interviewed. Ms. Coulter and Ms. Charleau were ranked fifth and sixth, respectively. It was conceded during the course of the hearing that Ms. Sage's score should have been 243 rather than the 248 as shown, given the existence of an arithmetic error on Ms. Malloy's score sheet. Immediately following the final interview a composite' sheet was prepared showing the individual scores, the total scores and the respective ranking. The panelists then signed off the form noting that+Ms. Sage was the recommended candidate. Ms. Malloy and Mr. Sardine had no further involvement in the competition. It is apparent that they did not review the candidates personnel files or performance appraisals. Further~ they did not seek to obtain comments or references from the candidates' supervisors notwithstanding the fact'that Freedom'Of Information Act releases were obtained. These matters were not discussed during the course of the panel's deliberations. In this regard, Mr. Sardine stated 3 that he did not discuss Ms,. Sage's performance in the short-term contract position with the other members of the panel. The position of Volunteer Coordinator was subsequently awarded to Sage. She has been in such position since November, 1988. A considerable amount of evidence was presented to this Board during-~the five (5) days of hearings. In our judgment, the following conclusions may be fairly drawn from such evidence: (i) There is no doubt in our minds that both grievors could perform the duties and responsibilities of the position sought as listed on the position specification filed with us as exhibit '4'. While this finding does not answer the question before us, as it migh~ if article 4.3 were a seniority based provision, it does suggest . that the grievors are not disentitled to further consideration because of an inability to satisfy the demands of the job. (ii) We find that the questions asked of the candidates were reasonably related to the job to be performed. This was conceded by the 'grievors in cross-examination and by Union counsel in argument, subject to the one (1) exception noted below. .[iii) Part E, relating to 'Communication Skills', was not evaluated by way of a series of distinct questions. The assessment, as stated above, was made on the basis of the candidates answers to Parts A through D. While this method may permit for subjective evaluation on the part of each panelist, we are unabl~ to conclude that it is objectionable on that ground, Indeed, it. is very likely that any assessment of communication skills will include a sub3ective component. The panel in this case measured the actual presence or absence of these skills in the context of ali of the answers given. The Board is unable to conclude that such an approach is improper, in many respects, it may'be superior to simply asking the candidate to assess the level of their skills. The same comment would apply equally to questions designed to elicit an opinion on communication skills in general. Lastly, we think it significant that the candidates themselves appeared to acknowledge the validity of the approach in cross- examination. (iv) The witnesses called by the Employe~ indicated Mr. O'Neal advised the candidates that the above-mentioned technique would be utilized. This was partially confirmed by Ms, Sage who testified she was advised that communication skills would be assessed throughout the interview. Ms. Coulter and Ms. Charleau did not recall such a statement being made to them. Indeed, the thrust of their evidence was that they were not so advised. In our 3udgment, after considering all of the evidence, we think it more likely than not that the grievors were informed about this aspect of the competition~ The Board concludes that the candidates, who were likely apprehensive at the commencement of their interviews, would be more inclined to not recall something being said than would those who were actually conducting the competition. We can find no reason for the panelists to deliberately withhold this information ~rom the grievors, 5 The Board does not find anything ob3ectionable in the weight accorded to the five (5) parts of the interview. The Union's primary concern was with respect to Part E. That part was accorded approximately twenty percent (20%} of the total possible score. The Board does not consider such weightin~ to be excessive given the significance of effective communication to. the recruitment and maintenance of a body of volunteers. Communication sk.il.ls would also be important vis a vis the public relations and community-information functions that would be part of the position. (vi) The Board has also determined that the interviews were fairly conducted. -We accept that the process was explained to the grievors and that they were afforded an opportunity to ask questions if clarification was required. Further, the questions directed to them were asked a second time if it appeared tha.t they did not fully understand the tenor of same. 'While suggested answers were listed in point form on the question sheet, credit was given'for other relevant answers.. On a review of all of the evidence, we believe that Ms, Malloy and Mr. Sardine were impartial and unbiased during their participation in the interview process. Nevertheless, we think that better notes could have been taken throughout the interviews. This observation is especially applicable to Mr. Sardine. While this gentleman stated he usually made a lot of notes, the evidence before us does not support his assertion. In many instances, the lack of appropriate notation made it difficult for him to recall why a particular score was assigned. The lack of good note taking makes it very difficult for 6 a Board of A~bitration to subsequently assess the validity of scores given to the candidates. While competition panels are not expected to produce a verbatim'transcript, some care should be taken in transcribing a brief summary of the cogent points made by a Candidate in response to specific questions. If this cannot be done while the person is responding, it should be possible to summarize the thrust of the answer at the conclusion of same or at the end of the interview. Attention to this task, will obviously make it eas~er for panel members to recall why they arrived at a particular assessment. It should also serve to reduce the risk that a Board of Arbitration might subsequently determine that there was an insufficient foundation for 'the scores assigned. (vii) It is clear from the testimony of Ms. Halloy and Mr. Sardine that they based their ultimate assessment of the candidates on the scores generated by the oral interviews, They acknowledged that they, did not ~eview the ~rievors' personnel ~files or performance appraisals. Similarly, they did not seek references or comments from the candidates' immediate supervisors. Mr. Sardine testified that he has been involved in excess of thirty (30) competitions with this Employer. He stated that he has never reviewed this type of documentation. Mr. Sardine appeared to suggest that such a step might prejudice external candidates for whom 'such information might not be obtainable. Ms. Malloy suggested that Mr. O'Neal may . have pursued references. Unfortunately, she did not have any direct knowledge that this was done. ~r. O'Meal was not called as a witness. The Board is, ? therefoqe', prepared to draw an adverse inference that he did not venture beyond the bald scores. Counsel for the Employer conceded that the drawing of such an inference would not be inappropriate in the circumstances. (viii) Neither of the grievors saw the' position specifications prior to the competition. Similarly, they testified they had not previously seen exhibit '18' relating to .the case management process used at the Sprucedale Youth Centre. In contrast, Ms. Sage had access to these materials prior to her interview. The Board has not been persuaded that any of this is material. Ms. Sage received the position specifications pursuant to a request for same. There is no evidence to suggest that the grievors could not have obtained the document in the same manner. Mso Sage received the case management description during the course of staff-training sessions. While the grievors denied having had ~he same opportunity, we find that their experience as prime workers should have given them sufficient familiarity with case management to allow them to respond to questions asked during the interviews. It is our impression from all'of the evidence that Ms. Sage showed the most initiative in preparing for the interview~ This is, perhaps, not unexpected as she had been out of the full-time work force since 1982 and had only limited experience at the 'Centre thereafter, Ms. Sage would, 'therefore, have a greater need to familiarize herself with the methods employed to treat Youn~ Offenders at Sprucedale. 8 The relevant provision of the collective agreement'is article 4.3 which reads: " 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." This Board in MacLellan and De Grandis, 506/81, 507/81, 690/81, 691/81 fSamuels) has summarized the criteria by which to judge a competition. In that award, the 'factors were listed as follows: 1. Candidates must be evaluated on all the relevant qualifications for the job as set out in the Position Specification. 2. The various methods used to assess the candidates should address these relevant qualifications insofar as is possible. For example, interview questions and evaluation forms should cover all the'qualifications. 3. Irrelevant factors should not be considered. 4. All the members of a selection committee should review the personnel files of all the applicants° ~. The applicants~ supervisors should be asked for their evaluations of the applicants. 6. Information should be accumulated in a systematic way concerning all the applicants." (pages These factors have been accepted by numerous panels of this Board: see CliDperton, 2554/87 (Watters) and Laforest, 1983/87 (Roberts). The underlying premise of this approach is that competition panels must give due consideration to the candidates "qualifications and ability to perform the required d~ties" as per article 4.3. The ..~ Board has found in these earlier cases that this task cannot be properly or adequately performed on the basis of just an oral interview. It has required that broader information be assessed for purposes of complying with the contractual direction contained within article 4.3. This has included resdrt to personnel files, performance appraisals ~and supervisory comments. Notwithstanding the above jurisprudence, there have been numerous instances in which the failure to engage in this broader review has not rendered the competit~ion fatally flawed: see Benton and Ross, 1S77/g4, 1578/84 (Roberts); Moore, 1051/86 (Watters); Sofas, 457/85 ~Swan); Strazds, 88/83 (Jolliffe); P01ack, 1120/86 (Forbes-Roberts}; Ben~, 1733/88 (Fisher); McCall, 0191/88 (Fisher). While all of these cases turn on thei£ particular facts, the Boards therein elected to sustain the result of the competition despite the fact that the process was flawed in certain respects. In Sofas, while, the Board was not "happy with everything that happened in the course of the selection," including a failure to consult personnel files, it came to the conclusion that the process as a whole was not unfair nor was it calculated to lead to an unjust result. The Board also found that the incumbent wa's better qualified for the job that the grievor. The former impressed them with her specific qualifications and experience for the position. In that case, the successful candidate had acted in the position in question for more than a year prior to the posting. The award 10 seems to suggest that evening' up the scores to account for the errors would not have brought the gr~evor within "strikin=~ distance" of the score ~iven to the incumbent. In Strazds, the competition panel failed, inter alia, to review performance appraisals. The Board there concluded that the flaws in their entirety were not sufficiently serious to 3ustify the re3ection of the ultimate result. From its perspective, the panel had engaged in a sincere and rational effort to assess the relative merits of the candidates. It determined that the procedure used was not so defective as to negate the complete process. This approach was also employed in Polack. In that instance, the panel had failed to consider personnel files, performance appraisals and supervisory references. In Ben%-, the panel committed numerous errors including.the failure to make reference checks. Nevertheless, the Board did not interfere with the result of the competition. In reachin~ that conclusion, it stated it was incumbent on the Union to show that the identified defects had some effect on the outcome. The Board placed an onus on the Union to demonstrate that the grievor would h~ve'obtained the position had the defects not occurred. In that case~ a differential of thirty-three percent (33%) existed in the scoring. Additionally, the Board was not entirely impressed with the ability of the ~rievor to grasp essential aspects of the'~3ob. 11 A si~nilar approach was adopted by the ~oard in McCai~. It noted that the Union must go beyond establishing the presence of defects in the competition. The Board held that it must also show "that assuming these defects did not exist, on the balance of probabilities the grievor is relatively equal or at-least, would be found to be ~elativet¥ equal if a proper re-run were ordered" (pages .4-5). All of the above awards suggest tha-t this Board will not interfere with a competition where the defects were immaterial to the ultimate result. As stated in Laforest, the remedial hand o'f the Board will be stayed when it is presented with convincing evidence- that the deficiencies could not have prejudiced the candidacy of the grievor. This Vice-Chair adopted a similar approach in Moore, 'It was there held that failure to consult with .supervisors should not abrogate the decision of the panel. In that instance, it was apparent to the Board that the elimination of the defect would not have altered the result of t'he.competition. More particularly, we were satisfied that the selection procedure was arranged and conducted such that adequate information was generated as to the respective qualifications and ability of the candidates. This present panel of the Board is inclined to agree with the view that it makes little labour relations sense to order a re-run when the defects, if remedied, would not have influenced the ultimate decision. This disposition, however,, is based on the assumption that the competition panel had sufficient information befbre it to 12 allo~ for an informed assessment as to the relative standin=~ of the candidates. Generally, we think it would be somewhat rare for this threshold to be satisfied solely on the information elicited at the interview. On the facts presented in this case, there is no doubt that the competition was flawed. Here, the panel did not consider the contents of personnel files or performance appraisa'ls. Additionally, they did not consult with the grievor's supervisors. In cross-examination, both grievors acknowledged that a review of personnel files and performance appraisals would have disclosed they were good employees. In' our 3udgment, this acknowledgment does not negate the panels failure to consider the sources' in question. While the level of the grievors performance in their 0ohs is of some significance, the real question to be answered from a review of the documentation is whether they possessed the qualifications and ability necessary to perfocm the specific ~ob sought in the competition. In this respect, we find that the instant panels inquiry was incomplete. The Board has some difficult~ understanding why they did not resort to the additional data. This information was readily available for the internal candidates. An attempt could also have been made to secure similar material in respect of external candidates. We have not been satisfied that the existence of possible pre3udice to the external aPplicants supports or justifies the complete disregard .of information pertaining to internal candidates. 'It would seem from 13 ® ~r. Sardine's evidence that the practice of the Employer in competitions is not to revie~¢ existing personnel files and performance appraisals. In resisting the thrust of this Board's 3urisprudence, they are unnecessarily assuming the risk that a competition result may be set aside thereby exposing the Centre to the further costs and delay associated with a re-run. In our 3ud~ment, it would be prudent for the Employer to reassess its current practice. The scores flowin~ from the interviews have been previously noted. They disclose a gap of approximately fourteen percent (14%) and twelve percent (12%) between Ms. Sage and Ms. Charleau and ~s. Coulter, ~espectivel¥. The Union, however, attacked the validity of the scoring. Counsel submitted, in essence, that the scorin~ was "wrong". A considerable amount of time was spent in c~oss- examination in an attempt to undermine the assessments made by Ms. Maltoy and Mr. Sardine. The Board does not intend to reproduce all of the evidence led as a consequence of counsels probin~ of the Employer witnesses. In summary, we think that the admissions ~ene~ated fall into fou~ (4) separ'ate categories, each of which are addressed below. Both Ms. Malto¥ and Mr. Sardine conceded, on fumther reflection, that they had improperly assessed the grievous and Ms. Sage in respect of certain ques. t'~'6~s. More specifically, in those instances they were unable to support the score given. They were 14 consequently prepared to either increase or decrease their initial scoring. The Board has no doubt tha~ it is proper to consider this type of concession in reviewin~ the relative standing of the candidates. Indeed, in argument, counsel for the Employer made adjustments 'in the scores to reflect this type of admission~ There were several instances where Hr. Sardine may not have heard an answer given by one of the ~rievors. When confronted in cross-examination with the fact that Ms. Malloy had heard and noted the answer, he was prepared to adjust his scoring'upward. The Board also elects to consider this type of concession in our overall assessment of the scores initially assigned. We do not equate this with "second guessing" Mr. Sardine. Rather, we think we are merely receiving Hr. Sardine's initial 'evaluation on the answer actually given. The Board, needless to say, 'has been satisfied that the responses were in fact given and that, for whatever reason, they were not properly ~raded by Mr. Sardine. This aspect of his scoring reflects an imperfection in the competition process which, i~ our estimation, should not serve to : prejudice a candidate. In certain other cases~ }~r. Sardine testified that answers, which he did not initially hear, would be worthy of credit if given in the correct context. When confronted with the discrepancies in his notes and scoring-.'¥i~s a vis Ms. Malloy, he asserted that the grievor had either missed the question or was "off track". In 15 respect of these answers, the Board is not prepared to go behind the scores originally given. We think that to do so would be tantamount to usurping the role of the selection panel. We accept that if Mr. Sardine believed the answer was inappropriate and not on point, we should not interfere with his judgment. The Board notes that Mr. Sardine had prior experience in the very job to be filled. .It is quite likely, therefore, that he was in the best position to assess the answers advanced' bM the various candidates, We also think it significant that the marks assigned to this group of answers were relatively consistent as between the three (3) panelists. Lastly, in respect of another group of-questions, the Board. was urged to find that the panel did not give appropriate weight to certain of the grievors' answers. In some of these instances~ the scores given by the panelists were inconsistent. Counsel for the Union generally suggested that the credit initially given should be increased. The Board, after due consideration, is reluctant' to engage in this type of exercise. We think it quite common that members of a panel will have different assessments as .to the Value to be given to a particular answer. Assuming that the answer has bees heard and honestly assessed, we think it improper to interfere with the scoring. To do so would constitute a usurpation of the responsibilities of the panel and would create an excessively broad standard of review in competition cases. A further issue arose as to the weight to be given to Mr, O'Neal's scores. As noted, he was not called by the Employer to give evidence. The reason for this remains a matter of speculation. We find it somewhat unusual, however, that he was not called upon to support the ultimate result in the competition. In argument, the Union submitted that Mr. O'Neal's scores should be discarded as it was not provided with an opportunity to cross- examine with respect to the foundation for same. Indeed, counsel suggested that his scores were not evidence in the strict sense. The Board rejects this position. We note that the Union itself relied on Mr. O'Neal's score sheet for purposes of comparing certain notations and scores. In our judgment, these score sheets are evidence. The more significant-question relates to the weight which should be given to them. In the final analysis, we accept the submission of counsel for the Employer to the effect that Mr. O'Neal's scores should be discounted to the same extent as those given by Ms. Malloy, Applying all of the above reasoning to the original scores results in a narrowing of the gap between Ms. Sage and the two (2) grievors. While the Board is not in entire agreement with the mathematics employed by either counsel, we think that the final margin is closer to the nine (§) to ten percent (10%) as suggested by the Employer. We have not been persuaded to increase the grievors' scores to the extent claimed by the Union. Had we been so inclined, the gap would have closed to four percent (4%) and 17 seven percent (7%) in the case of Ms. Charleau and ~s. Coulter respectively, To repeat what was said above, the Board has rejected the Union's calculations as we think they excessively and improperly discount the scoring of certain questions. · Additionally~ although a matter of lesser concern, the Union's final scores were tabulated without reference to Mr. O~Neai's answer sheets. Ultimately, this Board has been required to determine whether the instant competition was conducted in accordance with article 4.3 of the collective agreement. Put another way, we have had to assess whether the proces~ used bM the panel, despite the existing ~ flaws, permitted it to reasonably and fairly conclude that Ms. Sage was the best qualified by a substantial and demonstrable margin. After considerable thought, we find that this question must be answered in the negative. The Board is unable to state, with any degree of confidence, that the panel would not have found a situation of relative equality had they accessed personnel files, performance appraisals and supervisory comments. In this sense, we think that the deficiencies materially prejudiced the grievors~' chances in the competition. This'conclusion is supported by much of the evidence presented to us. Apart from the scoring, as corrected, the Board has been unable to glean significant differences between the three (3) employees from a reading of their applications and resumes. .Further, the viva voce evidence was at best inconclusive. While w~ think it showed that Ms. Sage may 18 possess the hi~her level of communication skills, it did not disclose a substantial difference between the candidates. Indeed, it is arguable, from such evidence, that Ms. Coulter had .the greatest amount of related volunteer experience. In summary, the Board is satisfied that the competition was fatally flawed. In our judgment, the defects described above made it impossible for the panel to fairly determine the grievors qualifications and ability for the job of Volunteer Program Coordinator. Simply put, the competition was incomplete in a material sense as the panel significantly impaired its ability to assess the relative standing of the candidates here in question. This amounted to a violation of article 4.3 of the collective agreement. In these circumstances,, it would be improper for 'this Board to make an award of the job to one of the grievors. Clearly, such a remedy is inappropriate in .the context of a flawed competition. Other panels of this Board have reached the same conclusion in Clipperton and Bent. We are disinclined to make a finding of relative equality in the absence of personnel files, performance appraisal and supervisory comments. In all of the circumstances of this case, we elect to order a rerun subject to the following conditions: 1. The competition should be restricted to the two (2) grievors and Ms. Sage; 2. The selection panel should not include any of the three (3) individuals who conducCed the process which we have found to be flawed; 3. The process should be commenced within thirty (30) days 19 of the issuance of this award, subject to mutual agreement as to the extension of time; 4. A fresh set of questions should be prepared for the interviews. These questions should reflect the position specification as of the date of the last competition; 5. The selection panel is to review all personnel files~ performance appraisals and supervisory comments relating to the period prior to the date of the last competition; 6.. The selection panel is to discount the expe~ience gained by Ms. Sage since her appointment to the contested position. The Board, notwithstanding its order, is sensitive to the plight of Ms. Sage who, as noted above, has been in the position since November, 1988. The dela'ys in this case ha~e been somewhat unusual. It results, in part, from the fact that the Board was called upon to'determine if the grievors, as full-time employees, had the status' to grieve a regular part-time position. That preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative in .an earlier interim ruling. While we realize that Ms. Sage is now adversely affected by our ruling, the grievors were similarly prejudiced by the Employer's failure to run a proper competition. It would therefore be inappropriate to maintain Ms. Sage in the position. We have tried to the extent possible to structure conditions which will recreate the situation as it existed in October, 1988. This will hopefully be fair to all candidates. For all of the above reasons, the grievance is allowed in part. We will retain jurisdiction to resolve any difficulties that 20 may develop in the implementation o~ this award. Dated atToronto , Ontario this 2nd day of April .,1991. M.V. Watt6rs, Vice-Chairperson ~-~ j.. '..... : , ,./...,, · ,..~.,.,.,.,. S. Urbain, M'emo.~- ' /~ / ..... . ~, ~,,..~__