HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-1832.Wright & Wasky.94-02-16 · . ONTAf~IO £MPLO¥~S OE LA COURONN~
CROWN E,I, fP/..O)"~cE..?. DE L'ONTAFIfO
GRIEVANCE . C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
~80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUJTE 2'~O0, TOf3ONTO, ONTARfO. MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: [415) 326-135,~
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAu 2[00, TORONTO IONTAR[O). MSG ;Z8 FACS/M,'LE/T~-~COPIE .. (416) $25-I396
1832/91, 1833/91
IN THE MATTER OF AN..]%RBITR~TION '
Under · ·
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Wright/Wasky)
Grievor
- and-
The Cro~n in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)'
Employer .,.-
BEFORE . M. Watters Vice-Chairperson
E. SeymOur Member
G. Milley Member
,; FOR THE A. Lokan R Davis
!~: GRIEVOR Counsel Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Koskie & M!nsky
Barristers & Solicitors Barristers & Solicitors
FOR TH~ J. Crawford
BMPLOYER Deputy Director
Legal Services Branch
Ministry of Health
HE~A~ING May 5, 1992
April 7, 8, 14, 1993
June 17, 1993
~ September 14, 15, 29, 1993
· ~ October 8, 1993
The gr-ievances in this proceedin.g arise from a competition
at Lakehead Psychi.atric Hospital for the position of Volunteer
Services Organizer. The material part of the posting dated May
31, 1991 reads'
There wilt be a vacancy at the Lakehead Psychiatric
Hospital for the position of Volunteer Services
Organizer to plan, organize, implement and evaluate a
Volunteer Services Program which supports the 9oals and
objectives of Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital.
QUALIFICATIONS'
Experience in coordinating volunteer services; ~ood
oral and written communications skil'ls; demomstrated
ability to establish good interpersonal relationships
with a wide variety of individuals; working knowledge
of the Thunder Bay volunteer community with
demonstrated ability to work effectively with a wide
variety of organizations and agencies. Superior
planning and organizing· skills; demonstrated
leadership, teaching and public speaking skills.
'Demonstrated knowledge of current issues related to
provision of Mental Health Services; tact and
diplomacy. ,.
The 'Position Specification and Class Allocation' form is
appended to this Award as Schedule 'A' This document refers to
.... the position title as Volunteer Co-ordinator. For purposes of
this Award, we make no distinction between that title ad that of
Volunteer Services Organizer.
-Six (6) persons, including the two (2) grievors Mr. K. Wasky
and Ms. S. Wright, applied for the posted position. The Employer
elected to inter'iow all of the app]~cants. InOerviews were
conducted on August 14 and August 15, 1991 by a competition panel
comprised of Ms. J. Inkster, Assistant-Administrator, Clinical
Services; Mr. J' Van Sickle, Director, Vocational-Recreational
Services; and Hr. F. Loucks, Administrator, Lakehead Psychiatric
Hospital. Ms. Inkster served as chairperson of the panel.
Ms. Inkster and Mr. Van Sickle prepared the questions and
scoring format for.the competition. These matters were reviewed
with Hr. Loucks. Ultimately, each of the candidates were asked
the same series of eleven (11) questions. A copy of these
questions, together with suggested answers, ~s appended hereto as
Schedule 'B'. The highest possible score that could be achieved
by any candidate was one hundred and four (104) marks. This
included ten (10) marks which were assigned for communication and
clarity of thought. The questions and the marks alloted thereto
were divided into the following areas:
Related Experience - 12 marks
Skills and Knowledge- 15 marks
Job Knowledge - 33 marks
Problem Solving - 15 marks
Personal Suitability~ 29 marks
Each of the panel members independently assessed the answers
given by the candidates at the interviews. Their respective
scores were as follows:
~. Wrimht A. Ambrose K._Waskv
J. Inkster - 87 81 58.5
F. Loucks - 89 83 65.5
J. Van. Sickle - 74 77.75 89.5
A~erage - 83.3 80.5 64
2
Ms, Inkster subsequently conducted a review of the personnel
files and completed a reference'check in the manner described in
more detail below. Ultimately, the panel found the top two (2)
candidates to be relatively equal in terms of their respective
qualifications and abilities and, therefore, awarded the position
to Ms. Ambrose as the more senior applicant pursuant to article
4.3 of the collective agreement. This decision led directly to
the grievances of Mr. Wasky and Ms. Wright which are now before
this 'Board.
Mr. Wasky has been employed at Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital
since 1973, At the time of the instant competition, he was
workin§ as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counsellor, Mr. Wasky has
worked in that capacity since 1981.. In this position, he is
required to engage in the following tasks: (i) assess and
evaluate the vocational potential of psychiatrically disabled
persons; (ii) counsel on a one to one and group basis to help
pa.tients overcome vocational problems and to faoilitate career
planning'; and .(iii) liase with educational facilities, community
employers and training agencies to develop opportunities and
SPecial services for patients. Mr.. Wasky reports directly to Mr.
Van SickTe with respect to the performanoe of these job duties.
The Board was referred to Mr, Wasky's Employee Performance
Appraisal' for the period 1987 to 1991. The document appears to
reflect an above average level of performance.
3
Mr, Wasky worked as the Volunteer Organizer at the Hospital
between 1973 and 1981. The duties of the posi't~on were described
in his resume as follows' (i) to pian, organize and supervise a
comprehensive volunteer worker program; (ii) to recruit, assess,
orientate, assign and evaluate volunteers; and (iii) to liase
with facility staff and community organizations to promote
volunteerism. The Board was provided with the applicable class
standard for Volunteer Services SuPervisor (exhibit 4). It was
this 9rievor's evidence that he fully performed the job as
descri'bed therein. Additionally, Mr. Wasky test'ifqed that the
position he engaged in between 1973 and t98~ was s~bstant~a71y
similar to the one contemplated by the current position
specification, both in terms of the duties performed and the
skills and knowledge required. He acknowledged, however, that he
had not been active in the area of quality Assurance. Similarly,
he noted that he was not responsible in the position to either
prepare Or submi.t an annual budget. Rather, he would make
recommendations on budgetary matters on an annual or as-needed
basis. Mr. Wasky 'advised, however, that he had prepared a budget
while acting in the position prior to Mr. Van Sickle hav~Rg
assumed responsibility for same. Mr. Wasky further stated that
he did not then chair the Volunteer Services Advisory Committee
as that body was not in existence at the time.
For most of the period between 1973 and 1981, Mr. Wasky was
supervised by Mr. Van Sickle. In this regard, reference was made
4
to two (2) 'Employee Performance Appraisal' Reports dated March
3~, 1980 and March 26, 1981, respectively. The eartier appraisal
disclosed that Mr. W'asky was at, or near, one hundred percent
(100%) compliance with respect to all of the identified
performance standards. The later appraisal described Mr. Wasky's
performance of his responsibilities as "adequate". Nr. Van
Sickle made the following' comment on the fifth page of the
document-
''. ....... , I am concerned about the number of recruitments,
and the extent of volunteer contribution within the
hospital. Z am satisfied that Mr, Wasky is doing all
that is possible to maintain the.present level of
volunteer involvement. Nonetheless, Z shall continue
to review the volunteer co-ordinator's position in an
effort to determine how best it can serve the needs of
the department,"
Mr. Van Sickle subsequently dec~ded to abolish the Volunteer
Organizer position effective August, 198~. Hr. Wasky'stated that
he "strongly" disagreed with this initiative at the time. It was
at this juncture that the grievor commenced work as a Vocational
Rehabilitation Counsellor. Mr. Wasky stated that he viewed this
change in status as a promotion as it resulted in an increase to
his salary.
A decision was subsequently taken in 1985 to re-establish
-the position Of Volunteer Organizer. A temporary, non-
complement, employee was then hired into the position. Mr. Wasky
did not express an interest in that position. Ne did, however,
apply for the Volunteer Co-ordinator posit-ion posted in ~988.
5
This grievor was not successful in the competition'. He did not
~ontest the result there.in. Indeed, he advised Mr. Loucks by
letter dated August 4, 1988 that he would not have taken the
position had it been offered, to him. His letter, inter alia,
expressed concern as to certain of the questions asked during the
· interview and to the weight that was.accorded to same.
Additionally, Mr. Wasky in his evidence indicated that he had
reservations with respect to the Employer's perspective on the
nature and role of the position.
The evidence d~sc.]oses that Mr. Wasky had an argument With
Mr. Van Sickle during the course of the 1988 competition over
whether he would be permitted to bring written material with him
into the interview, Mr.'Van Sickle initially advised the grievor
i'
that he could not utilize such material. Mr. Wasky, in response,
stated that'he would not sit the interview if that was the case.
Mr. Van Sickle then elected to secure some advice end direction
on the matter. He ~]timate]y told the grievor that the'material
in issue could be brought into the competition interview.
Mr. Wasky testified that his 1991 interview lasted for
approximately two (2) hours. In his evidence, he expressed some
concern with respect to certain of the questions asked therein,
notably questions ¢2, 3, 8 and 9. He acknowledged that the
position posted in 1991 was somewhat different from the one he
had Drevious]y occupied. Firstly, the position reported directly
6
to senior management in the form of the Assistant-Administrator,
Clinical Services rather than to Mr. Van Sickle. Secondly, the
Volunteer Services area was envisaged as a separate department
rather than simply forming part of the Recreational, Vocatiomal
and Volunteer Services sect4on. This change, in effect, meant
that the Volunteer Co-ordinator was h'ead of a department and,
therefore, had §rearer responsibility in matters such as budget
and quality assurance.
Mr. WalSky's resume was filed with the Board as exhibit 3.
Hr. Wasky has obtained an Honours Degree in Sociology and has
completed some post-graduate work. It is clear from.a rea'din9 of
the resume that he has taken numerous training courses add
workshops relating to volunteer administration. In fact; he was
asked to,teach a course on VoTunteer Management at Confederation
College in early 1985, A reading of the resume also discloses a
i' significant' amount.of Committee and Board work, as we].t as
I volunteer experience of a personal nature, After a review of the
related documentation, and having had the opportunity to assess
Mr. Wasky first hand, the Board concludes that this grievor is
very knowledgeable in the area of volunteerism. We were left
with the distinct impression that he would bring a high degree of
professionalism to the exercise of his job duties. It is
apparent from.the documentation that Mr. Wasky has particular
strengths in the areas of research and grant formulation,
demeanor, white under oath, can be best described as soft spoken
and considered.
',
Ms. Wright commenced her employment at takehea'd Psychiatric
Hbspital in September 1985 as a Community Recreation Instructor.
Her continuous service date is March 25, 1986. The
aforementioned position required the grievor to develop and
introduce a recreation service for ex-psychiatric patients who
were integrating into community life,. In fulfilling this task,
Ms. Wright was called upon to consult and network with a,
considerable numbe~ of community groups, including volunteer
agencies. She testified that her work involved contact with the
Voiunteer Organizer and that she was responsible for the
supervision of volunteers placed with her.
.Ms. Wright became a Recreation Instructor II in 1987,
Between 1987 and 1989, she worked in the Psychogeriatric Unit.
Her' resume, which was filed with the Board, described her
responsibilities as fo] lows:
"- development, implementation and on-going review of
leisure activi-ttes for older adults with cognitive
impairment.
-.- trained, orientated and evaluated Volunteers, Co-op.
Placement and Confederation College students.
- working member of Recreation Department Quality Assurance
Committee and Unit Specific quality Assurance Committee.
- Coordinator of the Inter-Agency Tea Program including
scheduling of hosting agencies, regular meetings, update
agencies involved i.e. Homes for the Aged, Private Nursing
Homes, Long-Term Care Facilities. Provided agencies with a
monthly newsletter on the program changes and up-coming-
teas.
- coordination of hospital-wide special events i.e, monthly
· Coffee House, Magnus Theatre programs, Older Adults Family
Xmas Party and Dance Program.
8
Ms, Wright testified that this position involved her with
volunteers and volunteer agencies. For a brief period in 1989,.
this grievor served as the Acting Assistant Recreation
Supervisor. At the end of this acting assignment she returned to
a Recreation Instructor II position in the Acute Care Unit.
In early 1990, Ms. Wright applied for %he position of Acting
Volunteer Co-ordinator. This vacancy was initially intended to
last for approximately ten (10) months in order to cover the
maternity leave of the incumbent, Ms. L. Daniels. For reasons
not material to this dispute, the acting position was continued.
for a period of approximately sixteen (16) months, 'Ms. Ambrose
also applied for this opening, Ms, Wright was ultimately the.
successful candidate in the competition. She scored an average
rating of 90.75 marks. The average rating for Ms, Ambrose was
80.37. The interview summary stated that, "Anna Ambrose.,.scored
lower and did not demonstrate the initiative and independent
thinking required to fulfil] the position responsibilities," The
selection committee, which included both Ms. Inkster and Mr. Van
Sickle, unanimously agreed to offer'the position to Ns, Wright.
This offer was accepted effective April, 1990. Ms. Wright
remained in this acting position till the conclusion of the 1991
competition which is the subject of this proceeding.
Ms, Wright testified at some length as to the duties which
she performed in the acting position. It was the thrust of her
9
evidence that she engaged in alt of the core duties and
responsibilities listed in the position specification appended.to
.this Award, This grievor stated that she was.act'ively involved
in taking new initiatives while in the position, Reference was
made to her development of 'Interview Questions For Volunteer
Placement' (exhibit 20); questioDs for 'Reference Checks'
(exhibit 21); and 'Job Descriptions' for volunteers (exhibit 23),
Ms, Wright also. in~icated that'she "reworked" the volunteer
orientation program and expanded on the volunteer recognition
program, Mention was further made of-her plans for the
development of a more effective Volunteer Service Group (exhibit
24) and for the initiation'of a recruitment campaign for
administrative volunteers (exhibit 25),
The Board was provided with Ms, Wright's performance
": .appraisal dated June 18, 1991 for the period June 1990 to May
1991, The following comment of Ns, Inkster is found therein, at
page 12:
" . .... Susan has demonstrated a high degree of commitment
to the Volunteer Services Program. Her warm and
enthusiastic approach is most encouraging to the
volunteers. Her exemplary communication ski~s and good
judgment promote a well developed and supported
volunteer program,"
Mr. Loucks as the countersigning officer commented thai;:
"Susan has done a good job in her acting capacity in
the Volunteer Co-ordinator position. She shows balance
and good humour, as well as leadership and team
cooperation."
10
Generally, this performance, appraisal was very favourable in
terms of how Ms. Wright conducted herself while in the acting
position. An e~rlier appraisal dated October, 1987 in respect of
her work in the Community Recreationist position provided an
overall evaluation of "Definitely above average.
Ms. Wright also confirmed that the Volunteer Services
Department was restructured approximately six (6) months prior to
her embarking on the acting position, She noted that thereafter,
the Volunteer Co-ordinator reported ~.4rectly to the Assistant
Administrator of Clinical Services and that the service was 'no
longer under the umbrella of the Recreation, Vocational and
f.
Volunteer Services Department. From her perspective,'the
i~ Volunteer Co-ordinator then became a department head with greater
automomy amd responsibility. By way of example, Ms. Wright
asserted that after the change, the Co-ordinator was more
intensively involved in the bu.dget and quality assurance
processes. In her judgment, the job she performed in an acting
capacity was materially different from that formerly engaged in
by Mr, Wasky.
Ms, Wrigh~ agreed that she was given the opportunity to
review the position specification prior to the commencement of
the interview on August 15, 1991. She stated, however, that she
felt somewhat pressured to start the interview. Her interview
itself lasted approximately two (2) hours. It was her
11 /
recollection that the flow of the interview was interrupted on
two (2} occasions. She testified that at one point Mr. Loucks _
was called out to the telephone and that somewhat later the
meeting was disrupted by his beeper going off. Ms, Wright
estimated that in total the breaks encompassed about thirty (30)
minutes, It was Ms. Wright's further_evidence that she formed
the impression from Ms. Znkste'r's expressions and actions that
she was "holding up" Mr. Loucks. She testified that this
affected the way she responded to the final question. More
specifically, Ms. Wright stated that i-nstead of prov}d~ng
complete verbal answer, she referred to materials in her
portfolio which she ]eft with the pane~ for its consideration.
The grievor stated that she adopted this approach as she felt'she
was being rushed to complete, her answer.. Ms. Wright expressed
the opinion that suffici'ent credit was not given for the relevant
contents of her portfolio, like Mr. Wasky, Ms. wright was
critical of certain of the questions asked by the panel and the
susgested, answers f~r same.
Ms. Wright has a dip]oma from Confederation College in the
area of Recreation Leadership. She has also received'a
Certificate of Achievement from that same College with respect to
Supervisory Skills Training - Year 1. As in the case of
Wasky, Ms. Wright has been involved with numerous professional
associations and community groups. In this regard, we note that
both employees were active in the Thunder Bay Association of
Volunteer Administrators.
12
In summary, on the basis of all of the evidence, the Board
f~nds that Ms. Wright is a.capable, energetic and self-motivated
employee. The Board was impressed with her ability to
communicate in a clear, knowled§eable and personable manner.
Ms. Ambrose, the successful candidate, gave evfidenoe on
behalf of the Employer. She has been employed at Lakehead
Psychiatric Hospital since I983. Her continuous service date is
September 16, 1985. For the bulk of the period 1983 to April
1989, Ns. Ambrose performed as a Recreation Tns%ructor IT in
respect of a number of different units. She was responsible' for
planning, organizing and evaluating recreation programs for
patiemts based om their needs amd those of the specific units in
which they were placed. In this capacity, Ms. Ambrose supervised
both students and volunteers. Ms. Ambrose was promoted to the
position'o¢ Assistant Recreation Supervisor in April 1989. Her
duties in that pOSirt.ion included the following: (i) provision of
leadership and guidance to other recreation instructors; (ii)
compilation of a monthly statistical analysis based on weekly
statistics received, from recreation instructors; (iii)
representation of the department at multi-disciplinary unit
meetings; (iv) planning, 'organizing and assisting with the
implementation of all programs; (v) planning for group meetings
and hospital wide events for patients and families; (vi) chairing
of staff meetings in the absence, or at the request, of the
Supervisor; and (vii) interviewing, hiring, training, evaluating
13
and placing of summer students. Ms, Ambrose testified that she
was also involved with volunteers in this position. She stated
that while in the job, she assisted the Volunteer Coordinator
with recognition events. Additionally, it was her evidence that
she supervised volunteers who were placed with. her. Ms. Ambrose
s~ated that it was her practice to encourage staff to use
volunteers in all'of their recreation programs.
Ms. Ambrose reviewed the position specification for the job
of Volunteer Co-ordinator. She testif.ied that the' duties listed
therein are "quite similar" to those she performed as an
Assistant Recreation SuPervisor. It was the thrust of hoc
testimony that there is considerable overlap in the core
responsibilities of the two (2) positions,
The Board was presented with a series of perfohmance
appraisals dated August 26~. 1983; August 20, 1984; August 20,
1986; SePtember 15, '1987; and. July 15, 1991, The first appraisal
of Ms. Ambrose related to a summer position as an Assistant
Recreationist. Her overall performance in that posit, ion was
rated as excellent. The second appraisal related to a part-t, ime
position in 1984, The comments contained therein reflect a
generally positive assessment, 'The third and fourth appraisals
encompassed· Ms. Ambrose's performance as a full-time Recreation
Instructor. The Overall evaluation in both instances was
"Definitely above average." The final appraisal covered her work
14
as an Assistant Recreation Supervisor. A reading of the. document
d~scloses a very favourable evaluation. Ms. Ambrose was
commended therein on the level of her work performance.
Hs. Ambrose testified that she participated in the 1990
competition for purposes of keeping her interview skills alive,
She indicated that she was then unsure as to whether she wanted
to change jobs as she had only been in her current position for a
year, Ms, Ambrose contrasted this situation with the one
existing in 1991, At that ~juncture, she had been an Assistant
Recreation Supervisor for two (2) years and was more ready for a
change in position. She testified that she prepared extensively
for the competition. Ms. Ambrose indicated that she spent
considerable time talking with a Volunteer Co-ordinator outside
of the Hospital about the job. Additionally, she advised th. at
she extensively reviewed relevant resource material over the
course of l~he summer of 199~. Ms. Ambrose stated that she
"brain-stormed" possible questions which might be asked at the
interview. This led'her to prepare a detailed list of eighteen.
(18) ideas that she would attempt to implement if selected for
the position. This list was filed with us as exhibit 31. Ms,
Ambrose testified that she gave this document to each of l~he
panelists when responding to Question II. Tt WaS her evidence
that she also verbally reviewed each objective with the panel at
,;
the time.
~5
In cross-examination by Mr. Wasky's counsel, Ns, Ambrose
acknowledged that prior to 1991,she had never managed a volunteer
program exclusively. She further conceded that her prior
experience with volunteers'was limited to those in the recreation
programs. In cross-examination by Ns. Wright's counsel, Ns.
Ambrose acknowledged that there were a number of differences
between her role as an Assistant Recreation Supervisor and that
performed by Ns.. Wright as the Acting Volunteer Co-ordinator.
These differences may be summarized as follows:
(i) "her scheduling responsibilities were with respect to'staff
rather than volunteers. Accordingly, she was not required
to match staff and patient needs to the schedule of' the'
volunteers;
(ii) her staff schedule had to be approved by the Supervisor
whereas the volunteer schedule Pr. epared by the Co-ordinator
did not require the approval of a supervisor;
(iii)her prior work experience was in the Recreation area which
was one (1) of the three (3) services offered in the
Recreation, Vocational and Rehabilitation Department. In
contrast, the Volunteer Services area represented a separate
and distinct department;
(iv.) she did not have complete authority vis a vis budget
preparation. ~n contrast, ~s. Wright was required to
develop the budget for the Volunteer Services area;
(v) she provided orientation to employees and students
subsequent t° the two ('2) day hosp~ta~-~ide program
offered through the Education Department. ~s..~right,
as the Volunteer Co-ordinator, was responsible to provide
a hospi~al-~ide orientation ~o all volunteers;
(vi) her involvement in the recognition of volunteers ~as
informal in nature. More particularly, she did not engage
in any of the following functions: preparation of notices
of volunteer achievements for posting on the hospital
bulletin board; creation of recognition displays;' or
. compilation of volunteer hours per department for
certificate purposes;
('vii)she never recruited volunteers;
16
(.viii)she did not collect her own statistics or p.repare'a
statistical analys~s to the same extent as Ms. Wright;
(ix) she sat on the Quality Assurance Committee in the Recreation
Department, whereas the Volunteer Coordinator was a
committee of one with respect to that department's quality
assurance; and
(×) she bad not p(epared nor administered Volunteer services
Group Employment Grants,
Ms. Ambrose also advised in a very candid fashion that she was
surprised when she learned df her-selection for %he position here
in issue.
Hs. Ambrose's resume was also filed w~th the 8card. As in
the case of the other two (2] candidates, this applicant had
compiled an impressive record of additional training courses.
Ms. Ambrose's dip]oma from Confederation College was in the field
of Recreation Leadership. It is clear from a reading 6f her
resume that she had also participated in various workshops and
committees, The Board was ]eft with the impression that Ns.
Ambrose is a very c~mpetent and professional employee,
Ms. Inkster has been employed a% Lakehead Psych,attic
Hospital since 1979. She became the Chlef Occupational Therapist
~n May, 1981. She subsequently assumed the position of Assistant
Administrator, Clinical Services ~n December, 1988. The Board is
satisfied that Ms. Inkster had a good working knowledge of the
use of volunteers at the Hospital. We note that she participated
im both the 1988 and ~990 competitions amd that she had input
t7
imto the preparation of the cur.rent position specification for
the Volunteer Co-ordinator job.
Ms. Inkster gave Mr. Wasky a score of 56.5 out of 104 marks.
She appeared to.have two (2) primary criticisms o~ his
performance during the interview. Firstly, Ms. Inkster believed
that his responses to the questions lacked energy and enthusiasm.
She stated that the, pace of the answers was "particutarly~ slow",
In her judgment, it is important ~hat a Volunteer Co-ordinator be
able to generate enthusiasm and excitement. Ms. Inkster
asserted that Mr. Wasky's communication style, as exhibited '
throughout the interview, would be a barrier to the recruitment,
retention and motivation of volunteers. Secondly, she seemed to
conclude that Mr. Wasky had not adequately communicated the
relevance of his former position of Volunteer Organizer to the
various questions.asked during the interview. Put another way,
it appeared to Ms. Inkster that Mr. Wasky had not sufficiently
explained how his p'rior experience would equip him to handle the
demands of the poste'd position. She acknowledged that this
impressi.on was based on the information he provided with respect
to the questions. Ms. inkster stated her exPectation that the
grievor should have raised those aspects of his, earlier position
which were retevant to the questions posed by the panel,
Ms. Inkster gave Ms. WEight a score of 87 out of' 104 marks.
She stated the opinion that, overall, this grievor did "fairly
18
well" ir] the i.nterview. Ms. Inkster's recollection was that the
i6terview with Ms. Wright started at approxinlatety 8:50 a.m. and
concluded after 11:00 a.m. She described ~he interview as having
been "very long." Ms. i-nks~er could ot~]y recall one (7)
interruptio~ of about five(5) minutes at approximately 10-20
She denied the suggestion that the session was Jnter'rupted for a
period of thirty (30) minutes. Ms. Inkster, nevertheless, agreed
that she was feeling the pressure of t~me as Ms. Wright got to
the end of the interview. She asserted, however, that the fact
the interview ran tong d~d not affect her scoring of the
candidate.
He. Inkster acknowledged that she rated Ms. WrJght's
performance in the acting position as "above standard."
Reference has prevlOusly been ~ade to her written assessment Jn
the performance appraisal of JuDe 18, 1991. In her evidence, Ms.
InksteP stated that she was "certainly satisfied" with Ms.
Wright's performance as the Actlng Volunteer Co-ordinator. She
test~ffed that marks were not given Jn the intervlew for the
appraisa] previous]y glven to the grievor, Ms. Inkster indlcated
that Ms. Wright was scored exc]uslve]y on the basis of the
aoswens provided. She agreed that the grJevoc ]eft exhibits 24
and 25 with the pane]. She stated that material brought Jato the
J~terview would be taken into account if referned to by the'
candJdate in the context of a specific question.
Ns. Inkster scored Hs. Ambrose at 81 out of ~O4 marks. She
testified that this candidate presented herself as well-organized
and enthusiastic. It was her assessment that Ms. Ambrose was
familiar with the functions of the position. Ns. Inkster
indicated that she relied on the handout provided by Ms. Ambrose
in the marking of question 11. She stated that the document
'"completely fit with the question" and, for that reason, was
considered in assigning the mark. Alt of the panelists gave Ms.
Ambrose full marks for question ¢11.
The pane. 1 allo'bed itself approximately fifteen (15) minutes
after each interview for the completion and tabulation of their
individual scores. Ms. Inkster was unable to finalize her
gra'ding of Ms. Wright immediately after the interview as she had
anott]er commitment. She stated that this task was completed
later that same day. Zt is clear from'att of the evidence that
the panel did not discuss their respective assessments of the
various candidates immediately after the final interview on
August 15, 1991. A further meeting was held on August 22, 1991
at-which time theW totalled and assessed the scoring. Ms,
tnkster testqf~ed that the panel members discussed, the variances
between certain of the marks they had assigned, She stated that,
"We each justified why we had scored that way independently".
She could.not initially recall whether any changes were made to
the scores as a consequence of this discussion, Later, Ms.
Znkster asserted that some marks were, in fact, changed. She was
unable to provide any specifics as to which marks were altered.
2O
Ms. inkster i.ndicated that the 1990-compe'bitiorl was not discussed
during this meeting. Unfortunately, records were not kept of
these deliberations. Ms, InksteF testified that she was
comcermed about the degree of variarlce in .the marks assigned to
the top two (2) candidates by Mr. VAn Sickte in compar,ison to
those awarded by her and Mr. Loucks, She, nevertheless, did not
question the objectivity of the in~.erview process.
As noted earlier in this Award, the average score for'the
three (3) candidates here in issue was determined to be as
follows:
1. Susan Wright - 83.3
2. Anna'Ambrose - 80.5
5. Ken Wasky - 64
After consulting with the Regional Personnel Administrator, the
panel concluded that the 2.8 mark difference reflected a
situation of relative equality between Ms, Wright and Ns,
Ambrose, In cross-examination, Ms. Inkster was asked whether
this conclusion was ba~ed on the scores in the interview. Her
response was, "That is correct." -'
Ms. Znkster reviewed the personnel files of Ms. Wright and
Ms, Ambrose. She initially testified that she also checked Mr,
Wasky's file. She subsequently stated that the review of his
file could have been done following the filing of the grievance.
On all of the evidence, the Board concludes that' only the
personnel files for the top ·two (2) candidates were indeed
~hecked.. This conclusion is supported by_the 'Summary of
Interview' form subsequently completed by Ms. Inkster.. That
dacument states, inter alia, that, "The personnel files of each
of the two top ranking candidates were reviewed disclosing no
areas of concern "(exhibit 13, tab F). It was acknowledged that
the personnel files of the other three (3) candidates were not
reviewed. It is clear from Ms. Inkster's evidence that Mr, Van
Sickle and Mr. Loucks di'd not review the personnel files of Ms,
Wright, Mr. Wasky, or Ms. Ambrose. Ms. Inkster testified that
she "took back information to the panel" with respect to the
files checked. She stated further that such information was
"shared" with the other members, before the decision was made on
the successful applicant. Unfortunately, a record was not
maintained as to the content of that communication. In any
event, Ms. Inkster asserted that there was nothing in the
personnel fi]es to. alter the rating. It appeared from certain of
her answers in cross-examination that the personnel files were
assessed i.n the context of whether there was anything contained
therein which w~uld negatively impact on the applicant's
sui'tabi!ity for the position. This approach to the review of
personnel files is reflected in the above excerpt from the
interview summary sheet.· As noted, the comment taken therefrom
focused on "areas of concern". Ms. Inkster added, however, that
some credit would have been given ~'or any "extreme positives"
found within a particular candidate's file. She testified that,
22
ultimately, the content of the per'sonnel fifes did not alter or.
a~fect the scoring. It was Ns. Inkster's judgment that the
personnel files supported the ability of both candidates to
fulfil the responsibilities of the position.
Reference checks, were 'completed by Ns, Inkster only in
respect of Ms. Wright and Ms..Ambrose. It was her evidence that
reference checks were done in order to see whether any new.
information or perspective would be offered. She stated that the
paneq was looking for "positives and negatives". Ms. Inkster
acknowledged that it would have taken a lot for.them to rethink
the result. She indicated on the summary sheet that, "Referees
stated positive comments on each candidates."
Ms. Inkster also agreed that the resumes were not used in
.the scoring of the interview. She indicated that the resume of a
particular candidate would not have been referred to in the
interview unless that candidate alluded to specific information
contained therein. In cross-examination by counsel for Ms,
Wright, Ns. I.nkSter was asked whether the interview was. the
"entire competition." She responded by saying, "That is
correct". She asserted, however, that the reference checks and
personnel files "would have influenced if there were significant
areas. "Ms. Inkster acknowledged that these sources of
information were not incorporated into the rating system. She
was asked Whether the Panel discussed "given§ marks "for the
23
content of the personnel file, particularly the performance
a~praisals. Ms. Inkster replied, "No we didn't consider that, we
looked at the average of the scores."
Ultimately, the competition panel ~pted to award the
position to Ms. Ambrose, as the more senior candidate. She had
approximately six (6) months greater sen~or'ity vis a vis Ms.
Wright. In taking this decision, tile Employer purported to apply
article 4.3 of the collective agreement by giving the job to the
more 'senior.applicant when it perceived the qualificatiOns and
abilities of the two (2) candidates as relatively equal.
Mr. Van Sickle has been the Director of Vocational and
Recreational Services since 1976. In that capacity, he has
supervised all of'the grievors. He served as the direct
supervisor of both Mr. Wask'y and Ms. Ambrose at the time of the
instant competition. As stated previously, he acted as Mr.
Wasky's supervisor while that 9rievor was .in the Volunteer
Organizer position. Mr. Van Sickle confirmed that it was his
decision to abolish that position. He stated that he did so for
two (2) reasons. Firstly, he was confronted with constraints on
staffing and, secondly, he was concerned that the number of
volunteer hours had been diminishing-since t977.
Mr. Van Sickle awarded Mr. Wasky a score of 69.5 out of 104
marks, in substance, he expressed concerns about this
24
candidate's performance similar to those voiced by Ns. Inks%er.
Hr. Van Sickle stated the opinion that Hr. Wasky's responses,
while well organized, lacked enthusiasm and energy. He believed
that the Volunteer Co-ordinator had to be energetic in order to
sell at~d promote the Hospital in a very competitive field. Mr.
Van Sickle described the Volunteer Co-ordinator as "a front-line
image maker" and as'"an ambassador" for the. Hospital. He
testified that he did not get "a sense of salesmanship" from Mr.
Wasky's presentation. Ultimately, it was his judgmen~ that
personal suitability was extremely imPortant in respect ~f the
position here in issue. Hr, Van Sickle acknowledged that lack of
energy and commitment was not a problem exhibited by Mr. Wasky.
when he worked as the Volunteer Organizer.
Mr. Van Sickle also was of the view that Mr. Wasky did not
draw.sufficiently from his past'experience in formulating his
answers to the questions asked. He stated that in awarding
points throughout t~e interview he focused on the answers given
and did not take into account his personal knowledge of the
candidate. Mr. Van Sickle agreed that, with respect to several
of the questions, he was aware that Mr. Wasky had relevant
knowledge and experience that he failed to incorporate into his
responses. Mr. Van Sickle Was not prepared to credit Hr, Wask¥
for this unarticulated experience as he believed it was incumbent
on the candidate to "display their knowledge and skili." He
stated that the panel should not make assumptions about the
25
knowledge level of the applicants. Notwithstanding the above,
M~. Van Sickle would have found Mr. Wasky relatively equal to Ms.
Ambrose. On that ~na~¥sis, he would have placed Mr. Wask¥ in the
job by virtue of his greater seniority.
Mr. Van Sickle gave Ms. Wright a. scone of 74 out of 104
marks. He could not recall her having presented any documents at
the interview and, more specifically, did not remember having
seen exhibits 24 a.~d 25 from her portfolio. Additionally, he was
unable to recall 'the length of her ir~terview or whether it was
interrupted, as claimed. In cross-examination, Mr. Van Sickle
agreed that he assessed Ms. Wright differently than did the other
· two (2) panelists. Ms. Inkster and Mr. Loucks both scored Ms.
Wright six (6) marks higher than Ms. Ambrose, while he placed Ms.
Ambrose 3.75 marks ahead of 'Ms. Wrigtlt. He testified that his
· scoring of Ms. Wright had in .fact been ir~creased at the meeting
of August 22, 1991. Mr. Van Sickle also acknowledged that he may
have "shortchanged'"'Ms. Wright on several questions, specifical
questions 3,4' and 8. Th'is may have occurred for two (2) reasons.
Firstly, in certain instances he did not record answers given by
the g'rievor that were noted and credited by
other instances, he was inconsistent in his scoring; that is, Ms.
Ambrose received credit for a response whereas Ms. Wright did not
even though the answer given was substantially similar.
Ultimately, Mr. Van Sickle agreed that, baaed on his answers in
cross-examination, Ms. Wright's score should be increased by two
26
(2) marks while Ms. Ambrose's score should be decreased by five
Mr. Van Sickle awarded Ms. Ambrose a score of 77.75 marks.
Generally, he considered that Ms. Ambrose and Ms. Wright were
"materially equal" in the context of this competition. Mr. Van
Sickle rated Ms. Wright ahead of Ms. Ambrose on job knowledge.'
Zn contrast-, he scored Ms. Ambrose higher, in the area of skills
and knowledge. He considered that the candidates were equal in
terms of their personal suitability for the position. In cross-
examination, Mr. Van SickTe acknowledged that he had improperTy
given Ms. Ambrose credit for courses taken outside of the three
(3) year period alluded to in question 2. Similarly, he agreed
that Ms. Ambrose'shou]d have received five (5) marks, and not ten
(10), for'question ¢11 as all of her answers related to the first
par~ of the question.
Mr. Van Sickle confirmed that the only personne] files
reviewed were those of Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose. He agreed
that the review of same had been conducted by Ms. Inkster and
that she reported back to the panel. He.could no~ recall what
exactly was communicated by Ms. Inks~er vis a vis the conten~s of
the files. He suggested that the review simply disclosed that
both candidates were "remarkably equal" Mr. Van Sickle asserted
~hat he was not aware of anything in Hr. Wasky' personnel f~le
that would have made a material difference in the competi'bion.
27
With respect to Ms. Wright, Mr. Van Sickle asreed that had he
reviewed.her performance appraisal, he would have 'had a more
complete understanding of the relevant courses, she had taken.
Her failure to actual.ly mention all of these courses and Other
involvements led him to significantly discount her mark for
question ~2. Similarly, Mr. Van Sickle conceded that if he had
reviewed Ms. Wri9ht's performance appraisal, he would have been
aware that many of the objectives listed on Ms. Ambrose's written
submission for question ~11 were ongoing duties or projects that
Ms. Wright had actually been. performing while in the acting
posft~on. Mr. Van Sickle agreed that the information contained
in the candidates' 'applications and performance appraisals was
not factored into his scoring, or that of the other panel ·
members, in reaching their determination on relative equality.
Finally, he could not recall reviewing the responses to the
reference checks. He testified that he relied on Ms. Inkster's
judgment in that regard,
Counsel for Hr. Wasky submitted that the competition was
flawed in a number of respects. Firstly, he argued that the
panel relied exclusively on the results of the interview in
reaching its final decision. The thrust of his argument.was that
the selection committee improperly restricted the scope of its
assessment of Mr. Wasky's qualifications and ability to perform ·
'i the duties required of the Volunteer Services Organizer. From
the perspective of counsel, the panel through the process it
28
adopted excluded from its consideration a number of sources of
delevant information. Reference, in this regard, was:made to the
panel's failure to consider and assess Mr. Wasky's resume and
performance appraisals. Additionally, counsel stressed that the
panel did not review the comments of his previous supervisors in
a systematic fashion. It was submitted that this latter' flaw was
not remedied through Mr. Van Sickle's involvement, as that
gentleman consciously excluded his knowledge of Mr. Wasky from
his assessment. Further, this knowledge was not communicated to
the other panelists as part of the competition process. Counsel.
suggested that the panel would have been in a better position to
assess Mr..Wasky's candidacy had they reviewed his performance
'appraisals. He argued that such a review would have disclosed
that this grievor possessed the requisite knowledge and
experience for the job. Counsel asserted that the panel's
failure to consider these sources of information amounted to a
fatal flaw given that Mr~ Wasky had previously held the ~ob for'a
period of eight (Si*years. Simply stated, it was the position of
the Union that by ignoring Such information, the'Employer based
its eotire decision on this grievor's performance during the
interview. Counsel argued that the danger of taking such an
approach was reflected in the panel's scoring of Mr. Wasky in the
area of personal suitability. He noted that the panel scored the
grievor low vis a vis this criteria notwithstanding the fact he
had performed effectively .in the position for a lengthy period of
29
Secondly, it was the position of the Union, on behalf of Mr.
Wasky, that the actual .questions asked in the competition were.
subject to challenge for several reasons. It was asserted
generally that the questions did not adequately reflect the
content.of the position specification. By way of example,
counsel argued that they did not focus on the need for teaching
and wr'itten com~unication skil]s. Further, 'it was submitted that
certain of the questions, such as numbers three (3) and ten (10),
were excessively vague and were "unconnected" to what the panel
was purportin§ to'evaluate. In this regard, counsel emphasized
that six (6) of the nine (9) marks alloted for question ten '(10)
were for matters not specifically referenced in the question.-
Lastly, counsel submitted that the design of certain of the
questions unduly favoured Rs. Wright, the incumbent at the time
of 'the competition. We were asked to find that she was in a
unique position to respond to questions six (6), seven (7), eight
(8), nine (9), ten (10) ~nd eleven (11). Counsel also noted that
approximately fifty percent (50%) of the questions were either
identical, or substantially similar, to the questions asked in
the 1990 competition. He suggested, as a consequence, that t~e
earlier competition constituted a "trial run" for both Ms. Wright
and Ms. Ambrose. It was }]is submission that a series of fresh
questions should have been prepared for the 1991 comPetition so
as not to disadvantage applicants such as Mr. Wasky.
Thirdly, counsel noted that both Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose
received credit for written material submitted to the panel
during the course of the interview. He submitted that Mr, Wasky
was prejudiced in that he reasonably believed from past
experience that such material should not be brought to an
'interview.
Ultimate.ly, the Board was asked to award the position to Mr.
Wasky,' Counsel argued that we had been afforded a full
opportunity, through a ton9 and extensive t~earing, to assess the-
applications, resumes, performance appraisals and supervisory
comments pertaining to all of the candidates. He submitted that,
this evidence, together with the other merits 'surrounding Mr,
Wasky's application, could support a Conclusion that this grievor
was at least relatively equal to the two (2) other applicants of
relevance to this proceeding, Such a finding would entitle Mr.
Wasky to the position.in view of'his greater seniority. In the
alternative, we were asked to order a re-run of the competition.
The Board was referred to the following authorities in
support of Mr~ Wasky's grievance: Palatino, Ra~os, Patterson,
1968 et al./89 (Kapl~n); Coulter, Charleau, 1395, 1304/88
(Watters)'; CliDperton, 2554287 ~Watters); Nixon, 2418/87
(Fisher); Oallo, 1522/85 (Fisher); Skater, Glemnitz,. 1934,1936/87
(Springate); Poole, 2508/87 (Samuels); .Esmail, 1186/87
(Dissanayake); Re Elein County Roman Catholic Separate Scho~t
31
Board and London and District Service Workers' Union, Local 22___~0
(1992), 26 L.A.C. (4th) 204 (Rose); Alam, 0735/85 (Brandt); ~
Powers, 7t6, 866/89 (Gorsky).
Counsel'for Msi Wright aisc submitted that the competition
was flawed. He emphasized that the panel did not sufficiently
consider this grievor's Past performance, particularly while
in the acting position. It was asserted that such evidence,
which was obtainable from sources such as performance appraisals,
if reviewed would have demonstrated that Ms. Wright was, in fact,
the superior candidate. Counsel suggested that a more diligent
review of past experience would, inter alia, have disclosed the
following: (i) Ms. Wright functioned independently as a Volunteer
Servel cas Organizer~ while Ms. Ambrose merely assisted her
supervisor; (ii) Ms. Wright had demonstrated ability in
recruiting, assigning and retaining volunteers, while Ms.
Ambrose's involvement in these areas was much more informal; and
(iii) Ms. Wright's experience and ability with volunteer agencies
was far more extensive than_that of Ms. Ambrose.
Counsel for Ms. Wright focused on Hr. Van Sickle's scoring
of the grievor in comparison to the scoring of Ms. Inkster and
Mr, Loucks. He noted that Mr. Van Sickte's assessment in several
respects was inconsistent with that made by. the other two (2)
panelists. Counsel desc. ribed the discrepancy as "inexplicable,"
He further submitted that there was a lack of consensus among the
32
par)el members with respect to the followin9 n~atters: what
responses would receive credit in the question relating to
retention of volunteers; whether marks could be deducted for a
candidate not providing a suggested answer;' and the manner in
which the panel intended to treat written material given to them
at the interview.. It was suggested that Ms. Wright was
disadvantaged on this latter point. More specifically, counsel
stated that if the grievor had been given more direction on the
panel's approach to written material, she would have given more
detailed answers towards the end of the interview.
Counsel further submitt.ed that the questions asked in the
1991 competition did not favour Ms. Wright, as claimed by counsel
for Mr. Wasky. With respect to question six (6), he suggested
that Mr. Wasky should have been able to identify, the listed
agencies from his past experience. He did not consider it
material that Ms. Wright may have had more recent experience with
a group such as Via-Vitae. Counsel made the same point with
respect to'questions touching on quality assurance. While
acknowiedging that question eight (8) may have had %he appearance
of unfairness to other candidates, given that Ms. Wright was
previously confronted with a similar occurrence, counsel no~ed
that the question contained an added element. More specifically,
he stressed that her situation did not involve a threat to go to
the media.on the part of the person who witnessed the incident.
He noted further that the Hospital's policy on patient abuse was
33
available for all of the candidates to review. Ultimately, it
Was'his position that the question as to how to respond to this
type ~f patient abuse was a fair one. With .respect to question
nine (9), counsel argued that the use of patients as volunteers
was not a new issue or one uniquely associated with'Ms. Wright.
Similarly, he suggested that the Hospital's Mission Statement was
readily available to all employees. Finally, counsel maintained
that vis a vis question ten (10), Mr. Wasky himself was aware
that 'bhe Volunteer Services Executive had been a troubling issue
of long standing.
Counsel for Ms. Wright argued, in effect, that Mr. Wasky's
· experience in the position was "stale" 9ivan that he last worked
in the job in 1981. He also noted that there had been
fundamental changes made to the position since that time. He
further submitted that little turned on the fact that Mr. Wasky .
had engaged in research and publishing. The Board was asked to
recognize that the position does not require a university degree.
For alt of the above reasons, counsel submitted that Ms.
Wright should b~ awarded the position as the superior .candidate.
It was argued in the alternative that the competition should be
re-run with conditions, We 'were provided with the following
additional awards in support of Ms. Wright's grievance: Eaton,
0629/85 (Knopf); Tan.qie, 1388/85 (Forbes-Roberts); Sabots,
34
2238/87 (Watters); GlQveE, 2571/87 (Barrett), Thirumalai, 979/86
(Slone); Anderson et al., 2132/87 (Forbes-Roberts).
Counsel for the Employer submitted that the overal~
competition process was fairly conducted. Reference was made in
this regard to the following aspects of the competition: (i) the
panel was comprised of members of management who were very
familiar with the volunteer position in question; (ii) each
panelist separ&tety scored the interview responses; (iii) the
panel prepared appropriate answers and a scori'ng format; and (iv)
the panel members engaged in a discussion on areas where there
were significant differences in scoring. Counsel also argued
that the q~estions were reasonably related bo the position
specification. Additionally, she stated that it was not
surprising that the 1990 and 1991 questions were similar in
content as the job remained the same. It was the thrust of the
Employer's position that the competition, as run, allowed for a
complete and accurate assessment of the respective abilities of
the three (3)'candidates. From the perspective of the Epployer,
it was not obligated to establ'ish the existence of a "perfect
competition" In this instance, it was asserted that any flaws
that might have occurred were immaterial and would not, if
corrected, lead to a different result.
Counsel noted that the position formerly held by M.r. Wasky
had been abolished in 1981. She alluded to the fact that the
35
decision to reassign the grievor was subsequent to certain
cOncerns being raised in one of his performance appraisals about
the effectiveness of the position. Counsel stressed that Mr.
Wasky had not been successful in the ~988 competition, in 1991,
he placed fifth.out of six (6) candidates. Counsel indicated
that the evidence supported the validity 0¢ such placement.. She
suggested that the panel had properly and fair'ly concluded that
Mr. Wasky lacked the requisite enthusiasm for the position and
that he had simply not been as thorough 'in his resPonses as Ms.
Wright or Ms. Ambrose. It was submitted on behalf o¢ the
Employer that a' panel did not have to actively search out answers
to questions in a candidat'e's resumer application or personnel
file. Rather, counsel argued that it was incumbent on the
applicant to relate their skill, knowledge and experience to the
posted position by way of his or her responses.to the questions.
In her judgment, Mr, Wasky failed t'o establish this nexus. She
suggested that it would be wrong for a panel member to assume an
answer to a questio~ on the basis of some knowiedge they might
have about a particular applicant. Counsel submitted that the
interview process would become excessively subjective if panel
members were required bo make these kinds of assumptions. In the
circumstances of this case, it was argued ~hat Mr. Wasky could
not reasonably believe that' he was precluded from bringing
written'materials to the interview. Mention was made of the fact
that he ultimately was permitted to resort to such material in
the 1988 competition.
36.
. Counsel acknowledged 'bha~ Ns. Znksber's evidence was nob al1
(hat clear as to whether this 9r~evor's personnel file was
reviewed as part of the competitiot~ process. In the final
analysis, it was her submission tt~at failure to engage in suc~ a
review was not a fatal flaw with respect-to Mr. Wasky's
grievance. The Board was reminded that Mr. Van Sickle was
familiar with Mr. Wasky as he had been his supervisor for a
number of years. Counsel referred to the former's evidence to
the effect that he was unaware of anything in this griever's
personnel .file which would have dictated a different outcome in -
this competition. I~ was her assessment that Hr. Wasky's'
appraisals were merely average while those of Ms. Wright and Ms.
Ambrose were above average. She also reiterated that the panel
had access to the resumes and applications of all of the
applicants, including Mr. Wasky.
in summary, it was 'the position of the EmplOyer that Mr.
Wasky was not relat'ively equal to the other two (2) candidates
and could not, gherefore, lay claim to_ ~he position by virtue of
his 9rea~er seniority. We were accordingly asked to dismiss his
grievance.
,;
Counsel for the Employer acknowledged that Ms. Wright scored
-' highest, in the interview. She stated, however, that when all
· ~ a,spects of the competition were considered, including
applications, resumes and the contents of personnel files, the
3 ?
I
griever and Ms. Ambrose were relatively equal for purposes of
a'rticle 4.3. She ma.intained that the panel foun~ nothing in .the
personnel files of these two (2) candidates which would.serve to
distinguish one from the other. Counsel-submitted that the Board
should not issue an award which would, in effect, penalize the
Employer for'attempting to comply with the collective agreement.
Counsel asserted that Ns. Ambrose's performance could be
explained on two (2) grounds'. Firstly, in the 1990 to 1991
period, she was developing skills'substanti'ally similar to those-
required in the position of Volunteer Services Organizer. It was
argued that these skills were directly transferable to the
position sought. Counsel further asserted that experience in the
actual job was not a necessary precondition for success in the
competition, From her perspective, it was more important for the
applicant to possess the skill and ability to do the job.
Secondly, counsel referenced the evidenCe from Ms. Ambrose as to
the extensive preparation she engaged in prior to the interview.
We-were urged to conclude that it was therefore not surprising
that she performed as well as she did in the instant competition.
The Board was cautioned generally about altering any of the
scores given by the three (3) panel members. With respect to
question eleven (11), it was noted that each member gave full
marks to Ms. Ambrose. Additionally, it was submitted that the
weighting given to the area of personal suitability was
38
suppor'table in view of the nature of the job. Ultimately, we
were asked to dismiss Ms. Wright's grievance and to sustain the
Employer's decision to award the position to Ms. Ambrose.
Counsel for the Employer filed the following awards with the
.Board without making comment on their-applicability to this case:
Vaillancourt,. 1620/87 (Wilson); caSsell, Laugher; 1834/90 (Low);
MacLellan and DeGrandis, 506 et al,/81 (Samuels); ~clntyre,
0141/85 (Knopf); Bent, 1733/86 (Fisher); Brander, P/0006/92
(Willes); Eazzolari, Kumal~ Budwat, 1244 et al./84 (Verity); ~io~
894/89 (Barrett); McCaig, 0191/88 [Fisher);' Peters, 1423/90'
(Kaplan); Chert, Talon, 70/79 (Brent).
In his reply, counsel for Ms, Wright submitted that
applications and resumes must be taken into account in making the
decision called for by article 4.3 of the collective agreement.
He asserted that it was wrong to simply use this source of'
information as a "screening device". He also noted that in this
'instance, the personnel files were. reviewed by just one (1)
member of the panel. Counsel suggested there was little, if any,
evidence to show that they were taken into account by'the entire
panel in coming to their collectiv6 decision as to the
qualifications and abilities of the candidates. It was counsel's
submission, that the personnel files, and more importantly the
appraisals contained therein, were used only in a negative sense,
More specifically, he argued that Ms, Inkster reviewed them to
39
determine.if they contained any information which would merit
disturbing a decision already reached. Counsel repeated his
submission that the Employer did not evaluate Ms. Wrigh't's prior
Performance in the acting position in a systematic way i'n order
to assess her skill, ability and qualifications for ~he job of
Volunteer Services Organizer.
Article 4.3 of the collective agreemeBt reads:
~n f~Tl~ng a vacamcy, the Employer shall give primary
consideration to qualifications.and .ability to perform
the required duti'es. Where qualifications and ability.
are relatively equal, length of continuous service
shall be a consideration.
This Board'in MacLeltan and De Grandis, 506, 507, 690,
691/81 (Samuels) summarized the criteria by which to judge a
competition. In that award, the factors were listed as follows:
1. Candidates must be evaluated on alt the relevant
qualifications for the job as set out in the Position
Specification.
2. The various me~hods used to assess the candidates should
address these relevant qualifications in so far as is
possible. For example, interview questions and evaluation
forms should cover all the qualifications.
3. Irrelevant factors should not be considered.
4. Alq the members of a selection committee should review the
personnel files of all o¢ the applicants.
5. The applicants'supervisors should be asked for their
evaluation of the applicants.
6. Information'should be accumulated in a systematic way
concerning all the applicants.
(pages 25-26)
\
4O
The above factors have received general'acceptance by numerous
~an~ls of this Board. This fact is reflected by most of the
awards cited to us by counsel for the two (2) grievors. As noted
by this Vice-Chairperson in Coulter, Char]eau, "the underlying
premise of this approach is that competition panels must give due
consideration to the candidate's qualifications and ability to
perform the required duties as per article 4,3." The Board has
consistently determined that this task cannot be properly or
adequately performed on the basis, of just an. oral interview. It
has required that a broader base of information be assessed for
purposes of complying with the contractual direction contained
within article 4.3. This has included resort %o Dersonnel files,
particularly the performance appraisals contained therein, and
supervisory comments. An example of where this approach was
employed is the award in Palatino, Rasos, Patterson. The
majority of the Board there stated as follows:
". ..... We' also'find, however, that the employer in
this case religd too heavily on the interview results.
The authorities are extremely clear that the employer
must not rely solely on interviews in job posting
cases. At the very least the employer must also
. conduct reference checks of all candidates with
immediate supervisors 'and review al] app]icants]
.personnel files ........ , if the employer relies solely
on the interview for making an assessment of candidates
it does so at its peri]."
(page 45)
Zt is clear to this Board that the pane] in this instance
relied excessively on the scores generated through the interview
process In the case of Mr. Wasky they did. not conduct a
.reference check nor review his performance appraisals, as
4t
contained in the personnel files. Ms. tnkster agreed that in
assessing his related expecience, she relied exclusively on the
information he presented at the interview. Similarly, 'Mr. Van
Sickle appeared to make a conscious decision to disregard.
knowledge that he had pertaining to Mr. Wasky's past experience.
Both panelists were of the view that .it was incumbent on all
applicants to demonstrate their experience, skills and
qualifications through the4r answers to the questions posed at
the interview. We have no doubt given the panel's failure.to
review other sources of relevant i.nformation, that Mr. Wasky was
effectively excluded from further consideration solely because of
the interview scoring.
Reference checks and a review of performance appraisals were
,:
completed with respect to Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose. The Board
has been persuaded, however, that the decision they were
relatively equal was premised almost entirely on their respective
interview scores. Rs. Znkster, as noted previously, agreed that
.;
the panel's conclusion vis a vis the issue of relative equality
was based on the interview results. She further agreed with the
suggestion that the interview was the "entire competition",
subject to some "startling" information, being discovered in the
review of the personnel files. Mr. Van Sickle testified that the
information contained in the applications and performance
appraisals was not factored into the scoring that ultin~ately led
the 'panel to conclude the top two (2) candidates were relatively
42
I
4
-i
equal. We gleaned from his evidence that the panel were driven
tb their conclusion by the interview results.
As stated in the evidence, Ms. Inkster was the only panel
member who actually reviewed.the personnel files of Ms. Wright
and Ms. Ambrose. As. chairperson, she.reported back to the panel
as to the results of her review. Unfortunately, the subsequent
discussion of the panel was not recorded. As a consequence, it
has been difficult to assess what effect, if any, they gave to
the information obtained. In our judgment, it would have been
helpful had the panel documented any discussion on the impact of.
the data contained in the personnel files. The Board was left
with the impression, from the evidence presented, that the
performance appraisals were not assessed in the context of what
they might offer with respect to the candidates' qualifications
and ability to perform the required duties of the Volunteer
Services Organizer. Rather, we are satisfied that the panel
looked to this source of information to find any "extreme"
': - positives or negatives which might deter it from a decis'ion
· already taken. Ultimately, the board concludes that the panel
did not assess the personnel files, and most importantly the
appraisals contained therein, in an attempt to discern the
respective abilities of the candidates. Instead, we think that
the material was assessed in order to determine whether a
conclusion of'~elati.ve equality, premised on the interview
scores, should be disturbed.
43
It is the judgment o¢ this Board that the review of the
personnel files, as described above, constituted a fatal flaw in.
the competition process. Simply put, the pane7 in effect
virtually ignored Ms. Wright's involvement in the acting
position. While that involvement would not guarantee success in
a subsequent competition for the permanent position, we consider
that 'it should have been assessed on a more systematic basis, and
that it should have been factored into the comparison of the
relative status of Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose'. We have not been
satisfied that this type of evaluatio~ occurred. ~n the case of
Mr. Wasky, it clearly did not given the decision not to review
his personnel fitel There was no consideration, therefore,
whether his past work experience in a simil, ar position might
offset, at least to some degree, a poor performance inrthe
interview. We find this failure to properly assess the.past
experience of these grievors to be somewhat surprising given.the
qualifications listed in the posting. That document called for
experience in co-ordinating volunteers and for "demonstrated-
ability" and "working kn~wT~dge" in other areas relating to
volunteer services.
The above comments are also applicable to the are~ of
supervisory comments. At the time o¢ the competition, Ms.
Inkster served as Ms. Wright's' supervisor. Similarly,-Mr. Van
S~'ckqe acted as the supervisor for both Mr. Wasky and Ms.
Ambrose. Despite these relationsl~ips, it is clear that the panel
44
did nob assess in a systems'bio way how 'the 9rievor's past
~xperience and work record might equip them to hand'te the duties
and responsibilities o¢ the posted position. We also note in
this regard tt~at little use was made of information contained.in
the resumes and application forms. Add~b'iona]ly, references ~ere
not checked in respect of Nr. Wasky~
In 'summary, the Board concludes that the type of broadl~
based assessment required in cases of this nature was not
completed in this instance. In our judgment, the panel placed
excessive emphasis on the. interview scores ~n' rejecting Hr.
Wasky's candidacy and ~n determining that Ns. Wright and Hs.
Ambrose were relatively equal. We think in the final analysis
that they excluded relevant information from their consideration.
For 'these reasons, the Board finds that' the competition should be
re-run, subject 6o the conditions l'isted below. We have not been
persuaded that the panel's failure was immater~'al to the ultimate
result and may, accordingly, be overlooked. Similarly, we have
not been convinced that a case has been made to pl¢ce either Hr.
Wasky or Ns. Wright directly into the position'
The above f~nding ~s sufficient to d~spose of th~s case.
The parties, however, raised numerous other issues relating to
the competition. We elect to address certain of these questions
in the hope that our comments might be of.assistance in future
competitions, incquding the re-run which this Board has ordered.
45.
As. stated earlier, both parties to this dispute, advanced
submissions relating to the questions asked during the
interviews. After considering these submissions, we have
determined as follows:
(i) .the questions-asked were reasonably related to the position'
specification for the Volunteer Co-ordinator job;
,(ii) the su9gested answers were generally appropriate with
respec.t to the questions asked. We note Chat many of the
questions were open-ended and we.re such that a variety of
responses could be given. The evidence Presented suggests
that the panel was prepared to consider, and give credit
for, answers which were not listed on their answer sheets.
We find, however, that greater care could have been used
'in framing the wording of question ten (10). As indicated
earlier, the panel awarded six (6) of the nine (9) marks to
matters implied, but roi; directly asked, in-the question,
We have not be~n persuaded this deficiency had a material
impact on'the outcome of the competition.
(iii)it is apparent that at least six (6) of the questions asked
were similar to those asked in the ~990 competition with
respect to the acting position. Ms. Wright and Ms'. Ambrose
might therefore have some advantage over Mr. Wasky in their
response to same'. After reviewing the questions asked, we
are unable to conclude this advantage would be significant.
In our judgment, Mr. Wasky, given his past experi'ence,
should have been able to adequately address the issues
raised;
(iv) we'have found that the questions reflected the content of
the position specificatiof~, 'As Ms, Wright had been in the
job for sixteen (16) months, it is l,ikely that certain of
the questions were easier for her t;o answer, This potential
is very difficult to completely eliminate when an applicant
has been acting in 'the posted position for a considerable
period of time. Care must be taken, however, in designing
the examination so as not to give an incumbent an advantage
that can be said to be unfair. We cannot find the advantage
to have been unfair in this case, especially since both of
the other applicants asserted that they either had or were
engaged in the core 'duties of the position, We do express
some concern with respect to question eight (8). The
situation depicted therein was close, but not identical, to
a situation which Ms. Wright had actually confron.ted. We
note that Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose scored the 'same number
of total marks for that question. Nevertheless, the Board
thinks that this type of question, which has the appearance
of being unfair, should be avoided in future.
(v) the Board 'is disinc'tined to second guess the Employer in its
decision to increase the weighting of the factor relating to
47
personal suitability. We think 'that questions nine (9),
eleven (11) and twelve (12) were appropriate and did not
call for excessively subjective judgments. Further, we are
satisfied that the VotunLeer Services Organizer must
demonstrate energy and enthusiasm in their every-day work.
A number of concerns were raised by the Union with respect to
the scoring of the instant competition. After rewiewing the
submissions, we conclude as follows-
(i.) during the course of. their evidence, the two (2) pane~
members had numerous difficulties in recalling from their
notes why marks were given.or withheld for specific
questions. While memor'ies obviously fade with the passage
of time, this loss of recollection can partially be
overcome through the making of contemporaneous notes in a
thorough and legible .fashion. Additionally, We thi~k that a
clear record should be kept of the results of any meetihg at
which scoring ~ discussed and changed. As noted, this was
not done here with respect to the meeting of August 22,
(ii) the Board has concerns with respect to certain aspects of
Mr. Van Sick]e's sconin9. Clearly, his marki'ng differed
materially from that of Ms. Inkster and Mr. Loucks vis a vis
the relative positions of Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose.
Different percept'ions and assessments are to be expected
48
when a panel is comprised of' '~hree (3) persons. Indeed,
this potential is one of the reasons why competitior~s are
not administered by a single individual. The theory, quite
clearly, is theft a three (3) persor'~ panel will provide a
broader, fairer and more informed judgment on the ultimate
question. In this case, our' con.cerns with Mr. Van Sickle's
scoring are two-fold. Firstly, he failed on at least one
(1) occasion to credit Ms. Wright for answers given which he
either failed to hear or record. It was an important
omission as Ms. Znkster noted and gave credit for the
response. Secondly, again on one (1) occasien, he was
~ inconsistent in his scoring of Ms. Wright and Ms. Ambrose,
in the sense th.at he credited tile latter for an answer but
.i declined to do so for the former despite the fact her
response was substantially the same. Generally, we are
inclined to believe that Mr. Van,Sickle may have underscored
Ms; wright somewhat. The Board wishes to make clear,
however, that ~e do not consider thi's to have been a
] deliberate act on the part of Mr. Van Sickle. There'was
: absolutely no evidence of bad faith on his part;
(iii)the Boar'd is disinclined to draw any adverse inferences
relating to Mr. Van Sickle's scoring on the basis of the
score~ he gave in the" ~990 competition, notwithstanding that
.. the questions presented were similar in both instances, In
our judgment, primary emphasis must. be placed on the scoring
49
,-
of the qompetit;ion which was grieved. We consider that a
comparison, of a pane~ fuember's scoring tn two (2) separate
and distant competitions has little merit or utility.
'(iv) lastly,'we accept the Employer's argument that candidates
must respond to the precise questions asked. The panel
should nob be obligated to assume the applicant knows the
answer because Of their past experience. The Board agrees
that the'panel can score 'bhe ir~terview on the basis of the
answers actually received. It is for this reason that'the -
panel must also look to broader sources of information ·such
as performance appraisals and supervisory comments. A
rev'iew of this type of data will disclose whether the
interview results represent an incomplete-or inaccurate
picture of the :experience, ability and qualifications of a
particular candidate.
It is apparent 'to the Board that Mr. Wasky sho(~ld have known
that he could bring written material with him to the inter_view.
As indicated·,· he was ultimately perr¢itted to resort to such
mater%al %n the 1988 competition. There is no evidence to
suggest that h~s lack of success there~'n was related to his
insistence that he be a]towed to .uti]ize wrltten material. Mr.
Wasky did not grieve the result of the 1988 competition on that
ground not did he al]ude to the mat~er in his critica] memo to ,+
Mr. Loucks dated August 4, 1988 (extqibit 14). On the evidence
5O
before'us, it is possible that Ms. Wright ma~ not have received
complete credit for the written material she supplied to the
panel,, at least not t~ the same extent as Ms. Ambrose. To avoid
this type o¢ concern, the panel should initially decide', and then
instruct the applicants, &s to how written materials may be
ut'ilized at' the inter'v~eu. Lastly, the Board has not been
persuaded that Ns. Wright was adversely affected by the one (~)
or two (2) interruptions that occurred during the course o¢ her
interview.
In this competition, the Employer purported to comply with
article 4.3 of the collective agreement. More specifically, it
gave effect to Ms. Ambrose's greater seniority on the basis of
its conclusion that she was relatively equal to Ms. Wright. If
the Employer had reached that decision after a'thorough review of
the broader informational sources referenced in this award, it is
.unlikely that the r~sult would be subject to challenge. HeFe,
the Board has elected to intervene given that we have concluded
the Employer did not proPerly or fully assess the qualificatidns
and ability of these two (2) grievors to perform the required
duties of the Volunteer Services Organizer, In this respect, the
Employer contravened art-icle 4.3. Our decision should not be
read as a critique of Ms. Ambrose's talents. 'The Board was
impressed with her experience and qualifications. It is easy to
.
understand that she might perform well'in an interview setting.
We have ultimately concluded, however, that e×bessive weight was
51
placed by the panel on the interview performance ~f all three (3)
candidates.
For all of the above reasons, the grievances of Mr, Wasky
and Ms. Wright are allowed, in part. We order that the.
competition be re-run, subject to the following conditions:
1. 'The competi'tionlshould be restricted to the two (2) grievers
and Ms., Ambrose;
2. The se'lection panel should not include any of the three (3)
individuals who conducted the process which we have found to
be flawed;
3. The prOcess should be commenced Qithin thirty (30) days 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 t° discount the experience gained by
Ms, Ambrose since her'appointment to the contested position'
to the extent that is possible.
The 'Board will' retain jurisdiction to resolve any difficulties
that may develop in.the implementation of this award, _
Dated Windsor, Ontario this 16th. da~_~f_February ,~994.
M.V. Watt~./¥ice-Chai'rperson
,~. Seymour, Member
G. Milley, Member
52
( ~'¢~¢~o~ ' ~ Post~Zon Specification & Cla~s A,ocaUon-C
· (Refer ~o ~ack of form for completion
~Lun teee Co-ordinator [ 05-9597-~5
~ ra.W~k(fl~P.T:Po~,only) [Cll~ ~h.I ~ w~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~* ~ ~-) C~e[I)
Volunteer Semites Organ zer
SuP.n~e~:Volunteer Co-ordina[Or I 05-9597-&5
8ren~a~[~ ~O~ ...... ~' Assistant A~[nis~ator L~ationLakehead P~ia[ric ~it~
~.T~'~ ~ H~g i, t a:~~ r ....
~ Clinical Services Thunder Bay . I
"'~'/-Ni:qf'potltimnl No. ofpl~es Assis~an[ Admlniscrator -
] ~ 'l~] '""..~'1'~ I NIL C inica Serv ces 05-9597-0,
To pl~'~.Organ~ze~ implement and evaluate a Voluntee~ Serv;ces Program which
the ~oals and objeclives of Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital.
1.Plam~Lo~amizes and cooPdimate5 the Volum[eec Pmo~mam
determining program needs by attending unit bus[ness meetings ond
... depar:men Is;
-- recruiting volunteers through media adver[]sing, participation with various
· ;~t~e'r. aaencies, pe~sona~ presentations, w~rd of mouth;
-I
.scceening potential volunteers by interviewing, checking references and
~ ~ Jd~te~ining personal suitab,l,ty;
95__ . providing a comp~ehenslve orientation of :he hospital to registered volunteers;
-- overseeing the training, supervision and evaJuatJon of each voJunteer;
--.. ~JECidg-'each volunteer [na program according to the e~pressed needs of star
members, keeping in mind the expectations of the voJunteer;
es~abl ~$hJng~ a~d implementing regular volunteer recogn~Z~o~;
~ providing staff t~ainlng, both initial and ongoing, tn the use and acceptance
vOJ unteees;
-- ~espondJng to requests for volunteers and jointly preparing job des6riptions;
-- .Ch~tF~g Volunt~ Services AdvJsory Committee meetings, an~ act%n9 as the
Corresponding S~retary for the Volunteer Services Group Executive body;
-- promoting volg~teerism in the community through regular liaison with various
"C0'~J ty · agencies;
· ~! ~b~r~Jp~ng J'n regional and provincial volunteer groups.
GeneraJ 5upecvlSion
... ~commended Ciasslflcation:
t un tear: ,Serv ices 0rOe n ~ zer 10092
Hour~ ~f "W~rk: 36.25 Wk .Min. AD-09 PersonneJ Officer
'4. [k~]li a~kn~l~ r~ui~ t0 ~dorm job at full wor~nj le~a. I ~ai~te ~n~toty ~ede~tJJtl or license, if
:xperience ~n c~rdinating volunteer services; good 0ral and written communicatior
demonstrated ability to estaDlish ~ood interpersonal relationships with a wide var
of individuals; working knowiedge of the Thunder Bay Volunteer community with d
strated ability to'work effectively with a var;ety of organizations and agencies. ((
5. Si,n,tur, ,m--I,. S~..i,or O.,. M~nin~ ~ [
Janet R. Foster F.O. Loucks - Hospital Admin[~
L Day
~1 hive ¢lall~fled lhit ~otitio~ I~ ~corde~ca wi~h ~he Civil Sluice Com~tllon Cl~Mi[icllio~ $~enda?~l lot the following reason:
Under ge~ral d~ction res~nsible for planing, p~tion ~d direction of ~ act:
c~r~ensive p~.of Volunteer Se~ices.
s. ~ Rec~its, assesses, orients, assi~s ~d evaluates Volunteers: ~intains associated
~co~ ·
c. ~ta~s liaison with facility staff ~d c~i~y org~izations ~d agencies to
p~te vol~teerism.
~;g~at~re 01 lu~horiz~O ~1~ -- -- O~te ~V~ ~V~tUatO?'S ~l
· t "-
7~O.t 072 IRkv.~10~S~
InstrUctions for compiellng form CSC-$150
~his 10~m u In<~iC. ated below I~ NI ~l~e~= excepl ~ ¢ov~r~ ~ [~ ~utJve ~m~n~t~ Pla~, M~a~emem ~m~l ~n PI~
zlnl~r~c]O~
ssJfl~ Full and Pa~-tlme positions: ~o~ to'~ ~mplel~ In lis entlre~ a~ce~ 1o~ lhe Fu~ ~e ~z ~ ~n 1. ;
:la~lfledm~l ~ ~Seas°nale. PoNtions (Group 3): ~mpla[e ~ns [ ~d 6 excel for the Fu~I0nN ~ ~x In
other positions: ~mp~t~n ol this fo~ in ~ ~ as ~1 out e~ve f~ Un~s~ ~nN P~A~, is
lnS~Cti0ns for ~ding Position Identifier Instmc~ons to~ c~ing ~asona~ Wo~ Pe~od
· Multiple ~e~, La.. Summer. f~l.
mS and celeted tasks {cont'd)
collin~ the Voluntee~ Services P~oscam by:
· me~ntainlng ~-meco~d keeolng system which p~ovides accurate da~e re n~mbec of
vol'unlee~s, volunteec houcs, and I~ation
compilln9 statls[Jcs~ p~epe~in9 cepo~ts~ both .monthly and annually;
developing a Quality Assurance Program end conduc~in9 various aud;ts
Assu~snce cequicemen ts;
ceviewing and. updating Volunteer"Services Pcoceduce Manual and Ocientation
p~epa~ing :and s'ubmlttIng annual budget;
p~e~a~ing and administering the VoJuntee~ 5ePvlces G~oup Employment Gcants;
establishing and implementing a p~ess foc eva~uat~on of the Volunteec
PPog~am.
Pecfo~ms cea&ted dut~es.a'~ assigned,
s and Know~edge Requited
rlo~ pfannln~ and organizing s~ills; demonstrated leadership, teaching and publ
king sRilis. OemonstP~ted knowledge of current {ssues related ~o provision of
al Health ~rv[ces; taCl and dip~omacy.
· VOLUNTEER SERVICES ORGANIZER
24-13-91
SELECTION COMMITTEE:
J. R. Inkster, Chair
F. Loucks, Hospital Administrator
J. Van Sickle, Director, Voc. Rec. Services (Personnel Rep.)
G. Trottier, Community Advisory Board
Candidates will be evaluated on the basis of their responses, and
selection of the successful candidate will be based on scores'
achieved in the following areas:
Skills and Knowledge - Ques. 2 = 5) = 15 3 = ~0)
Related Experience - Ques. 1 = 12
Job Knowledge - Ques. 4 = 10) :
5 = 8)7--~9~
7 =
Problem Solving - Ques. 8 = 6)
= 15
- 10 = 9)
Personal Suitability ~ Ques. 9 = 9)
11 = 10) = 29
12 = 10)
Total = 10~
Candidate's Name:
QUESTION i: Pie~se outline your work history, stressing the
significant experiences which have prepared yo'u for
the position of VOlunteer Services Organizer at
5akehead PsyChiatric Hospital, aa it relates to:
leadership: community liaison with organizations
and agencies: public speaking and communication:
working with the psychiatrically disabled.
Response demonstrates independent functioning in the followin9
areas:
- leadership
- community l'iaison with organizations and'agencies
- public speaking and written responses
- working.with psychiatrically disabled
3 points per each section
Maximum 12 points
Answers should be graded with ~espect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication, style: - energetic'
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a'good pace
- effective choice of words
The panel members are to feel free to request clarification or
expansion of responses..
QUESTION 2: ~Please outline any relevant seminars, workshops
you have attended in the past three years. Have
you deYel0ped any special skills which might apply
to the job responsibilities of Volunteer Services
Organizer? Describe how these special,skills have
.prepared you for this position.
Candidates will be awarded' 1 poin~ for each relevant workshop/
skill. Candidate must indicate relevance of knowledge/skill and
evidence of application of the skill to the position responsibil-
ities.
2 points £or each significant managemen~ course:
1. Manigement courses - e.g. Level I and II
2. SkiLls which would bring him/her into contact with the
volunteer segment - e.g. significant volunteer activity fo'r a
per~od over 6 months.
*Ca didates must show how the skill relates.to the job.
3. Pub!is speaking, Toastmaster.
Maximum (5)
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication'styl~: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a good pace
- effective choice of words
EDUCATION:
QUESTION 3: Outline for the committee five issues related to
Mental Health and discuss 'how these issues could
effect the way in which volunteers provide
services to this hospital.
1. Proposed Forensic Unit for the hospital.
2. Adoption of the Psycho-social Rehabilitation Model.
3. Emphasis on treating the chronically, psychiatrically
disabled.
4. Educating the public re: mental illness: reducing the stigma
of mental illness.
5. Limited dollars to spend on Mental Health Care.
6. Institutional care vs community care, a struggle for the same
dollars.
7. Use of controversial treatment - i.e. E.C.T. or medication.
8. Recognizing patient rights to refuse treatment.
Maximum 10 points
1 mark each for identifying 5 Mental Health issues.
1 mark each for explaining how the Volunteer Services will be
effected.
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication style: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate .~
- communicates at a good pace
- effective choice of words
QUESTION 4: Recruiting and retaining volunteers is a difficult
task. Outline for'the committee how you plan to
keep volunteers and why you believe this strategy
will be effective.
1. Providing a thorough orientation.
2. Making frequent contacts with volunteers and the volunteer's
supervisor 'to ensure everything is going all right.
3. Addressing education n~eds, i..e. concerns about specific
illness.
4. Highlighting achievements of volunteers in newsletters,
bulletin, etc.
5. Recognizing volunteers with pins and certificates, etc.,
birthday cards, special notice- of contribution or
achievement.
6. Listening to concerns and doing something about concerns.
7. Finding fulfilling work for the volunteers to do.
8. Encourage staff to recogniZe the volunteer's contribution.
The candidate'should be'able to give at least six distinct
ways
to sustain volunteers.
1 point for 1 reason --' total of 6 points
Bonus of 2 points for each additional -- total of 4 points
Maximum 10 points
-
Answers. should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication style: -
energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a good pace
- effective choice of words
QUESTION 5: The Community 'Support Program, a newly developed
initiative in the hospital, has come to you .for
volunteers to be part of a new 1 to 1 leisure time
buddy volunteer program.
In~itially, the Community Suppor~ Program staff
would like to start with twelve volunteers with a
commitment of one contact per ~eek.
Ho~ would you ~andle this request?
1. Negotiate with Community Support Program staff 5o estab!isb
some flexibility in the number of volunteers and frequency of
contacts.
2. Ensure that you have a thorough, understanding of the
Community Support Program.
3. Request assistance from the Public Relations Department, get
pictures of clients in leisure .activities, etc. for
promotional material.
4. Develop some catch phrases, involve clients with writing
their own reasons why they want a volunteer.
5. Target a specific' group - e.g.. College, university or church
group. Sell it as a project.
6. Involve clients and Community Support Program staf'f in the
actual display and promotional drive.
7. Utilize public announcement, set up flyers/posters.
8. Once the program is initiated,.begin to expand the program by
using established volunteers to market the program.
Candidate should sho~ an Understanding of the range of recruit-
ment techniques and the necessity to be flexible in approach and
creative and innovative in.adopting different approaches.
1 point for each technique stated. 7 points
1 bonus point for evidence of understand-
ing of the Community Support Program. Maximum 8
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication style: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a good pace
QUESTION 6: Identify the following organizations and indicate
how the LPH Volunteer Services .Group could be
invo!ued with them.
- Canadian Mental Health Association -
Rehabilitation Action Program'
- John Howard Society
- M2 - W2
- Multi-Cultural Association
- Via Vitae
- Volunteer Action Centre
- Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics
Candidate should be able to identify each Organization's involve-
ment with voluntarism. ~
1/2 mark
Candidate should be able to identify how our volunteer organiza-
tion would link with. the organizations.
1/2 mark
MalimUm ~ marks
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication style: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at. a good pace
- effectiue choice of ~ords
QUESTION 8: A volunteer Somes to yo'u most upset that she has
witnessed a staff physically abusing a patient.
The staff member was forcing food into a patient's
mouth, although the patient, was protesting. The
volunteer threatens to take this information to the
press. Outline how you would handle this incident.
· 1. Ask the person to your private-office and request ~hat they
describe the incident.
2. Ask the Assistant Administrator, Clinical Services, to' join
the discussion' tf unavailable, request the presence of the
Admini'strative Assistant t'o Hospital Administrator or
Psychiatrist-in-Chief.
3. Notify the Public Relations/Communications Officer of the
potential media coverage.
4. Explain hospital policy on patient abuse to the volunteer,
and request that he/she respect the policy, explaining the
long term negative effects of media coverage.
5. Assist volunteer to describe the inc.ident in writing.
1 point for each step
Maximum 6
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication style: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a good pace
effective choice of words
-
QUESTION 9: Please comment on the following:
(1) The use of patients as volunteers.
(2) Volunteer-run programs such as the Patients
Library should be able to operate on a set
schedule.
(3) The role of volunteers in Supporting the
Hospital Mission Statement.
Candidates should be able to give a balanced response
pointing 'out strengths and weaknesses, and illustrate
practical skills in assessing patients appropriatenbss to be-
come a volunteer.
2) Candidate Should recognize the importance of establishing
programs that run on a set schedule, regardless of avail-
ability of volunteers.
3) Candidates should be able to identify the.patient population
that the hospital is committed to serve, and show how
volunteers can .serve this group while fostering strong
community linkages.
3 points each comment
Maximum 9
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication st. yle: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a good pace
- effective choice .of words
QUESTION 10: Discuss your strategy for establishing a strong,
vital executive body of the Volunteer Services
Group.
- Incorporate executive body
- Develop fund-raising activities
- Sponsor specific activities for the hospital
Any answer which can be defended, taking into account the
difficulty the hospital has.had in organizing and maintaining an
active Executive body of Volunteer Services Group.
3 points for identifying what is a strong, vital Executive body.
3 points for identifying activities for the Executive.
3 points for identifying a strategy tnac will make the Executive
body strong and vital.
.
maximum 9 points
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clairty of thought: - concise, to the point answers
communication styl'e: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropriate
- communicates at a good pace
- effective choice of words
QUESTION 11 (a). Outline for the committee what you would like · to achieve during the next three years.
Candidates should be able to discuss proposed directions - e.g.
- Volunteer Services Group becomes active and self-governed
- Development of gift shop-reception
- Development of recruitment programs for specific target
groups.
5 points
(b) Discuss the impact of your three year plan and
link the rationale supporting your chosen
directions.
5 points
Candidates should be able .to justify directions, linking them
with the hospital's strategic objectives, and annual goals and
objectives.
Maximum 10 points
Answers should be graded with respect to:
clarity of thought: - concise, to the point answers
'
communication style: - energetic
- enthusiastic as appropri, ate
- communicates at a good pace
- effective choice of words
Review the answers of the tl questions and based on the
candidate's answer, assign up to 10 points for communication
and clarity of thought.